The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake an official visit to the United States of America from Thursday 12th October to Wednesday 18th October, when the House will sit. In the course of that visit I shall be delivering a lecture at the University of Boston and delivering the James Madison Memorial Lecture at the University of New York. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

North Staffordshire NHS Trust

Lord Walton of Detchant: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the findings and conclusions of the Griffiths report of 8th May reviewing the research framework in the North Staffordshire National Health Service Trust in the light of the criticisms set out in the paper by Sir Iain Chalmers and Dr Edmund Hey, published in the British Medical Journal on 22nd September.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government accepted all the recommendations made in the Griffiths report, which mainly concern improving research governance and guidance. The criticisms made in the article by Sir Iain Chalmers and Dr Hey relate to only one aspect of the review and do not invalidate the recommendations.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of the damning criticism of certain aspects of the Griffiths report set out in this paper published by two distinguished physicians, will the Government now withdraw that part of the report which contains those criticisms and apologise to the doctors, nurses and members of the local research ethics committee in North Staffordshire, whose reputations have been tarnished so unjustly by the inquiry? Also, will the Government ensure that all further inquiries into alleged research misconduct are conducted under guidelines that are at least as fair, robust and equitable as those used by the Medical Research Council?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Sir Iain Chalmers and Dr Hey were asked by the Medical Defence Union to review the papers leading up to the Griffiths report, and an article duly appeared in the British Medical Journal. In the same journal a response to some of those points was written by Dr Griffiths, who chaired the review panel. I want to make it clear that the terms of reference of the review arose from concerns expressed by parents in the early 1990s about some aspects of the conduct of research in North Staffordshire. The core recommendations of the Griffiths review relate to suggestions and recommendations in relation to the improvement of research governance throughout the National Health Service. The Government believe that those recommendations are sound and intend to implement them.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am surprised to hear that the Minister believes that the recommendations of the Griffiths report are sound in view of the considerable criticisms made by Chalmers and Hey in their paper. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that, particularly in the Birmingham area as he will have seen from the Birmingham press, this is a fraught subject, with paediatricians believing that they are under threat and being witch-hunted, and parents also having extremely strong views, believing that paediatricians are labelling them with Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. This is a difficult area for us all to understand. Will the Minister consider undertaking a new inquiry into the research carried out at the North Staffordshire Trust? Also, in view of the fact that there are other inquiries hanging over the trust and other paediatricians involved, will he ensure that fair and proper procedures are carried out for those inquiries as well?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that a further inquiry should be carried out into the Griffiths review. However, the department has received representations in relation to that review which we are now considering. Let me make it clear that the noble Lord is right when he refers to the controversial nature of many of the issues which have arisen. It is true that a number of the doctors involved are the subject of investigations by the North Staffordshire Trust and one of the doctors is currently subject to complaints being considered by the General Medical Council. However, the core recommendations arising from the Griffiths review relate to guidance on research governance within the National Health Service. It is on those recommendations that we have taken action.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Griffiths report appears to have given rise to a number of injustices, despite the Minister's comments about the value of some elements of it, not least of those being the apparent denial of human rights to the doctors being criticised in that they were not allowed to see the report before it was produced in order to be able to answer some of the criticisms?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the review was not conducted appropriately. My understanding is that each person interviewed was able to explore the issues that were raised. They were provided with a transcript which they agreed for accuracy. All the transcripts were then considered by the panel to decide who needed to be interviewed further. Further interviews with the panel took place, with witnesses again being provided with a transcript of their evidence for them to agree. I have said that we received representations and will be considering them. I repeat, the core recommendations, which relate to research governance, I believe to be sound.

Lord Winston: My Lords, I sit on these Benches because I believe in a fair society. I also believe there are so many flaws in the Griffiths report that it must be reviewed by the Government. It is clear that there are numerous factually incorrect statements and that throws into disrepute the whole probity of the NHS governance framework for research. Will the Minister consider the matter in a more carefully phrased answer?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have said that we have received representations and will consider them carefully. I have also said that we believe the core recommendations to be sound. Professor Griffiths responded to a number of the points made in the same edition of the British Medical Journal.
	As regards inquiries, reports and reviews, a number of different methods are undertaken within the NHS. I do not believe that the review was out of order or kilter with others which have taken place, or are taking place, within the NHS.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to a plethora of words but I want to ask the Minister a simple question. Is he prepared to consider giving the apology sought by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, or is he not? Can I have a straight answer to a straight question?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I always think that "yes", "no" answers are best avoided. Perhaps I may repeat that we have received representations about the conduct of the inquiry and we shall consider them. I stand by my earlier statement that the substantive recommendations made by Professor Griffiths are sound and that we intend to act upon them.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister said that the Griffiths panel expressed the view that research governance in the North Staffordshire Hospital Trust did not match best practice. In the light of that finding, has the guidance on research governance in the NHS been changed and if so in what way?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. The panel stated that as far as it could tell the governance system in the early 1990s was broadly in line with the then departmental guidance but would not be considered best practice now. The Department of Health has produced a consultative document on research governance and that is being considered by its recipients. We shall be providing definitive guidance in due course.

Classroom Disruption: Pupil Exclusion

Baroness Young: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied that teachers have sufficient powers to deal with disruptive children in the classroom.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already gives head teachers the powers they need to maintain discipline in their schools and to exclude violent or very disruptive pupils. The Act carries forward provisions on discipline and exclusion introduced in earlier legislation by the previous government.
	We have recently issued new guidance for exclusion appeal panels to indicate that the head teacher's decision to exclude should not be overridden in a range of circumstances, including where there is violence or the threat of violence.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware of the serious situation which exists in the teaching profession? I understand that because of the teacher shortage at least two schools are working a four-day week. Is she not worried that among the many reasons for concern is the plight of teachers who have been subjected to violent pupils: when their cases are considered everything appears to be weighted against teachers trying to do a responsible job and in favour of disruptive children? Does not that situation need a great deal of consideration and action?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is a difficult area and I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that there is a difficult tightrope to walk. Of course the Government want to support teachers in what all noble Lords know is an increasingly difficult job. The Government have no intention of preventing head teachers excluding violent or potentially violent pupils. At the same time, everyone is agreed on the importance of trying to use every possible way to prevent exclusions. Many excluded children end up as damaged adults with no qualifications or ability to do a job. If we are not careful, they are also likely to end up on the streets.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prevention of disruption is more important than having to deal with disruption? What government initiatives are in place to ensure that pupils do not become disruptive?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept the sentiment behind my noble friend's question. It is important to have early intervention and prevention as a top priority and the Government have emphasised that in the guidance they have distributed to schools. There are many different forms of support, including working with parents, which head teachers and teachers take seriously. However, a common-sense answer to my noble friend's question is that really good teaching will in the first place reduce the amount of disruption and poor discipline because totally engaged pupils are less likely to be disruptive.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as the NUT has said, her national target for the reduction of exclusions of disruptive pupils from schools is a monitoring mechanism, not a strategy, and therefore could be seen as putting the cart before the horse? Does the noble Baroness also accept that the imposition of that target puts schools in an impossible piggy-in-the-middle position and sets them against their LEAs? On the one hand, the LEAs put pressure on schools to reduce exclusions to meet the Minister's target; on the other hand, the schools have an incentive to remove the most disruptive pupils to maintain their position in the league tables and to protect performance-related pay. What plans do the Government have to untangle this mess of conflicting pressures?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a tangled mess of conflicting pressures. It is an attempt by the Government to ensure that there are goals as we try to reduce the number of children who are permanently excluded from school. That number rose very rapidly under the previous government, which is in no one's interest. I defend the Government's decision to have targets and goals as we try to reduce that number. That does not mean that proper guidance and support should not also be given to teachers. It is also very important that, through the learning support units that the Government are creating, we promote the possibility of removing disruptive children from the classroom without at the same time totally removing them from their schools as it is then much more difficult to reintegrate them later when their behaviour and performance have improved.

Lord Laming: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what progress has been made, first, to ensure that when children are excluded from school they receive proper education and, secondly, to help them to become reintegrated into mainstream education?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising a matter which is at the core of the Government's policies. When children are excluded, it is vitally important that we continue to educate them. That is what the learning support units within schools are all about. There must also be some offsite provision for those pupils who need to be excluded. The pupil referral units, which have been established for some time, are doing a relatively good job in trying to help children and parents to get back into the system. I cannot give a specific statistic, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord about the number of pupils who have been reintegrated into their schools.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an underlying problem? In recent years teachers have been asked to bear unfair burdens, which have been imposed on them by society as a whole as a result of the fragmenting of society and family breakdown, and those burdens have been compounded by the way in which teachers have been treated by the press. Does the Minister agree that teachers need all the support that we can give them?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that I indicated earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, just how important it is to support teachers in an increasingly difficult job. For that reason, the guidance that we have issued about exclusion appeals makes it absolutely clear that where a child is persistently disruptive and violent, that child should not, on appeal, be sent back to the classroom.

Miners' Compensation for Lung Disease, Wales

Lord Islwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many claims are outstanding in Wales by miners seeking compensation for chest and lung diseases as a result of employment in the mining industry.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are now over 26,000 Welsh claims. Almost all the initial medical tests have been completed. Some 2,000 have received expedited offers and 608 claims have been accepted with payments of £1.5 million. A further 5,300 interim payments have been made totalling £15.7 million, including 800 bereavement awards totalling £7 million. This is the biggest ever personal injury scheme and progress has been too slow. Currently, there are five Welsh testing centres and the DTI is investigating suitable sites for two additional ones in Glanaman and Ystrad Mynach. In addition, the DTI recently announced proposals for new and increased offers to thousands of miners. There are detailed points to work through with the claimants' solicitors, but the DTI hopes to make about 4,000 offers in Wales, totalling approximately £25 million, before Christmas.

Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the failure to meet these claims has done considerable harm to the reputation of the Government? Mr Justice Turner, who made the original judgment, has been openly critical. Mr Vincent Kane, who chairs the monitoring group, has said that the rate of progress has been pathetic, and he and the whole committee have threatened to resign. Is it not now time for the Minister to consider her position? While I know that she has tried hard, obviously she has failed. Does my noble friend agree that we need a senior Minister with clout who can settle these claims quickly and arrange for a far more generous system of interim payments?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, all members of the Government believe that this extremely difficult situation is being dealt with far too slowly. However, we should also realise that this is a hugely complicated matter in which we must conform with both the judgment of the High Court and the constraints of the Public Accounts Committee, in that we are not free to give money to people to whom it is not due. We must, therefore, input a great deal of information from solicitors, medical employment records, initial lung screening tests and medical assessments by a respiratory consultant. It is accepted that there have been problems to do with solicitors sending claims documents back to us and GPs and hospitals being unsure about whether to release records. We have now sorted that out with the British Medical Association. The Government are united in their belief that the process is taking too long, but there is a limit to what they can do. The Minister announced a whole series of new measures to improve the performance of the medical assessments, to put simplified proposals to solicitors and to increase fast-track offers. I know that the Minister has done everything that she can to move the process forward.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, to date, of the 26,000 claimants only 23 claims have been finally settled? Is the noble Lord also aware that at the current rate of Healthcall examinations it will take years to complete the medical assessment process? Will the Minister look into the situation where the DSS is reclaiming some of the money paid out under the scheme? Does the noble Lord agree that this process should be looked at again before it becomes even more scandalous than it is?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there have been 630 full and final settlements totalling £2.2 million. Of those, I believe that 22 cases--perhaps that is the figure to which the noble Lord refers--are negotiated settlements of litigated claims. Although there have been 630 full and final settlements that is not good enough given the total number, but it is better than the noble Lord implies. The purpose of the expedited offers is to enable us to avoid the complicated process of the medical assessment. For that reason we have put a good deal more effort into it. It is, however, clear that it will take two to three years to complete the process, but it is not as long as it would take if one simply divided the numbers involved by the rate at which one carried out the Healthcall assessments. I am unaware of the circumstances in which the DSS reclaims money, but if the noble Lord lets me have any information I shall certainly investigate it.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister indicate, first, how many interim settlements have been made, if any? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that more than two years ago when I held the post of Minister of State in his department this Question was put to me and I had every belief that the matter would be settled by now? Why has there been no settlement of the remaining cases?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I indicated in my initial answer, 608 final payments and a further 5,300 interim payments have been made. It has taken so much longer than originally anticipated because to comply with the High Court judgment a great deal of paperwork and medical assessment have been involved. We are proceeding as fast as we can. The only justification for the length of time it is taking is that it would have taken more than 15 years to reach a settlement on an individual litigated basis.

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. He was the Minister who answered a Question from me two years ago. The House is aware that the problem extends beyond the boundaries of Wales. The main problem now is that miners, and indeed their widows, are dying. Are there any plans for compensation for the families of miners or their wives who unfortunately have passed away in the period of nearly three years since the High Court judgment?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I and the Minister involved are acutely aware that the majority of the claimants are people in their 70s and 80s. Many of them are very ill and some have died. That is a particularly unfortunate factor in the whole situation. Even since I answered a Question on this matter in the House of Lords in May, a further 365 claims have been submitted where the claimant has died. In all these cases the claims will be continued by the claimant's widow or dependants. In addition, where the claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory diseases for which British Coal was found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the department will make a bereavement award to the claimant's widow.

Secondary Education

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many secondary schools based on a system of selection have changed to the comprehensive system since 1st May 1997.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in September 1998, Bristol local education authority published proposals to remove selection from Cotham Grammar School and Fairfield Grammar School. The proposals were supported by governors, teachers and parents at the school and there were no objections. The schools admitted their first wholly comprehensive intake this September. No secondary schools which were designated as grammar schools in the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 have become comprehensive as a result of a ballot to change their selective admission arrangements.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Why, after the Labour Party's many years of campaigning to introduce comprehensive secondary education, and with such an impregnable majority as the Labour Government have, is such slow progress being made? Is she aware that the balloting regulations, to which she has just referred, laid down by the Government, make it virtually impossible for parents to vote for a change to a comprehensive system? In those circumstances, will the Government examine what has happened in, for example, Ripon, Trafford and Kent to see what changes can be made to make the procedures more effective than they are at the moment?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend may remember that at the 1995 Labour Party conference the Labour Party argued the case in Support for Diversity and Excellence, a Labour Party policy paper, that decisions on the future of grammar schools should be a matter for parental ballot. That commitment was repeated in our manifesto. On the issue of ballot regulations, some minor technical changes have recently been made as a result of a commitment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Government do not intend to make further changes. They consider that the balloting arrangements are now appropriate.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, why are the Government so against selection?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have always considered that it is right to give educational opportunities to all children and not to designate them as educational failures at the age of 11. It is rather interesting that, under the previous Conservative government, one-third of grammar schools became non-selective between 1979 and 1997. If the noble Baroness is so committed to their survival, I wonder why she allowed that to happen.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, bearing in mind Mr Blunkett's comment in July 2000 that grammar schools would be redundant in little more than a decade, what kind of redundancy is that likely to be: compulsory or voluntary? Otherwise, how is that likely to happen?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, by that comment I think my right honourable friend meant that, as a result of the Government's policy to raise standards, comprehensive schools will be so improved that parents will not wish to go through the selective process. In that sense grammar schools will be redundant.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, given that 13 per cent of the As and Bs at A-level are achieved by 164 grammar schools, does the Minster not think that it would be a mistake to destroy those schools? Does she not worry that the other 87 per cent of schools do not achieve such high grades?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is not aware of the fact-- because he has some expertise in these areas--that children who go to grammar schools are selected by ability. So is it really surprising that they get higher grades at A-level? It is puzzling that he should ask that question. But it is also the case that able pupils in comprehensive schools do equally as well as those in grammar schools at A-level and earlier.

Judicial Standing Orders

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The purpose of these amendments is to replace the English and Welsh legal aid provisions in the judicial Standing Orders with words appropriate to the new arrangements under the Access to Justice Act 1999. These are purely technical amendments.
	Moved, That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders regulating judicial business:
	Standing Order V(2)
	After "granted" insert "public funding or".
	Standing Order IX
	After "for" insert "public funding or".
	Standing Order XIII
	After "refused" insert "public funding or".--(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Serbia

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement on Serbia.
	A remarkable democratic transformation is under way in Serbia. For 13 years Slobodan Milosevic dominated that country. He led its people into poverty and international isolation. In July he changed the federal constitution. He gambled that he would be able, once again, to count on the divisions among the opposition on propaganda and on intimidation to stay in power for many more years.
	He was wrong. Almost all the opposition united behind a single candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. They presented the voters with a clear choice--co-operation with Europe or four more years of pariah status under Milosevic. They gave people hope that this time their votes could really count. On the day of voting they managed to expose Milosevic's cheating, and publicise quickly the scale of his defeat.
	By manipulating the figures Milosevic tried to cling on. But the people of Serbia had had enough. They took to the streets in unprecedented numbers. They faced down the police, many of whom changed sides. They took their future in their own hands. They put their trust in their new leader, President Kostunica. We congratulate him and all his colleagues on their tremendous success.
	We worked closely with members of the opposition, NGOs and the independent media in Serbia over the past year. We and our partners provided them with a wide range of practical support, including training, funding for election monitors and key items of equipment. Now we can work with them, and with their neighbours, to help build a stable and prosperous future for the FRY and the region. As a demonstration of our commitment to assist the new authorities in Belgrade, the EU's General Affairs Council yesterday agreed a package of measures. Except for a few controls targeted specifically at Milosevic and his close associates, EU sanctions imposed since 1998 are being lifted. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be able to benefit from the EU's new aid programme, CARDS, once this has been established, and from extended humanitarian aid programmes. Finance Ministers will work with the international financial institutions to consider how the FRY can be reintegrated as quickly as possible into the international financial community.
	The Council invited the FRY to establish an EU-FRY task force to look at how the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia might progress towards a stabilisation and association agreement, and invited the Commission to submit proposals on the extension to the FRY of the asymmetric trade preferences adopted by the 18th September GAC. The Council also asked the co-ordinator of the stability pact to present proposals to make it possible for the FRY to participate fully in that initiative too. Member states agreed they would all aim to re-establish or normalise their diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For our part, we have already made clear to President Kostunica our interest in doing so as soon as possible.
	Alongside our efforts with our EU partners, we will continue to work closely with the government of the United States on all issues relating to the Balkans. We greatly value Washington's role and commitment over many years to helping to resolve the problems of the Balkan region. We share a common objective--making the whole region an area of peace and stability, a full part of Europe in every sense. We will want to work closely with Russia, bilaterally and in the contact group.
	We are still at the beginning of a process. Milosevic's rule has left a bitter legacy. The new authorities in Belgrade must now reach out to their neighbours, to start to rebuild trust. They must establish diplomatic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina and support the Dayton peace agreement. They must settle important succession issues with the other former Yugoslavia states as part of the normal process of joining the United Nations and the international financial institutions. Within the FRY they will need to institute a dialogue with Montenegro with the aim of establishing a new constitutional settlement. And they will also need to think very carefully about how they can achieve a structured democratic dialogue with the Albanian community in Kosovo. This is now possible, for the first time ever. We look to Serbian and Albanian leaders alike to approach this task responsibly and creatively in a European spirit.
	The new authorities must also accept their international obligations to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We made clear earlier this year that we had similar expectations of the new government in Zagreb. To their credit, they have complied, despite political opposition. We must ask no less of the new authorities in Belgrade.
	The past few days have marked a historic turning point for south-eastern Europe. The citizens of Serbia have begun to dismantle the criminal regime of Milosevic, and in return, as we promised we would, we have begun to dismantle the sanctions regime which affected their country. More than that, we have already embarked on a new road of regional and international co-operation. Her Majesty's Government are ready to work with the authorities in Belgrade to help them take forward economic and political reform. We welcome the Serbian people's choice of a genuine democrat and European as their leader, and we will move forward together towards their goal of full integration into Europe.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the noble Baroness's comprehensive Statement on the situation in Serbia and the Balkans. I want to make it clear straightaway that we share the Government's welcome for the fall of the dictator Milosevic, if it is his final fall, and for the lifting, or partial lifting, of sanctions by the Council of Ministers of the European Union. As the noble Baroness indicated, this is the culmination of a prolonged period of struggle which began way back with Slovenian independence and was followed by the Croatian battles, the hideous atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo and, now, the final protest from within Serbia against this monstrous man who has led the Serbian people through all this misery and bloodshed.
	The task now is to anchor Serbia into modern Europe. Does the noble Baroness agree that at this stage the emphasis should be very much on practical help, some of which she has outlined, and that we would be wrong to rush in or shower the Serbians with money or with lectures on how to behave? If we did that, we would be making exactly the same mistake as was made in the case of Russia. A lot of half-baked economic advice was peddled to the Russians combined with an avalanche of cash to no good purpose at all. Can we please ensure that we avoid making that mistake?
	Should we not be listening very carefully to what Mr Kostunica is saying? What he is saying needs to be precisely examined. He is saying that he has no love of superpowers, east or west. That is not surprising as his country was bombed by NATO and the Russians have been messing about and trying to influence internal politics. He does not raise the prospect of solving the problem of Kosovo. I noticed the noble Baroness's optimism, but I wonder how that will be done. It seems to remain an insoluble problem. Montenegro may be a little easier to handle, but that will be difficult too.
	As to the European Union, this is a delicate task where we have to proceed with great caution. Would it not be wise for the Council of Ministers to assemble a new group to establish dialogue with Serbia in these early days in order to see which way it is prepared to move? Does she agree that Mr Solana's mission to Belgrade--he has done excellent work but he is bound to be a little compromised in view of his forward role in the bombing--is probably not the best grouping? Very few of us have much faith left in the European Commission's capacity to conduct foreign policy sensitively.
	Does the Minister agree that the key needs now are that the people of Serbia get a free press and the free communication that the network age can bring, that the history of the past decade, in all its monstrosity, should be opened wide to the people of Serbia--their ignorance of what has been done in their name is enormous--and that in due course the war criminals, including Milosevic, should answer for their crimes, although perhaps that should be a little later down the line? Does she further agree that integrating Serbia in global financial reform is both important and difficult and raises vast complexities for the global financial system. It is not just a question of joining the EU but joining the global network.
	Finally, will the noble Baroness bear in mind--I am sure that she will be reminding her colleagues--that this is a regional issue? Countries other than Serbia have suffered grievously as a result of Serbian expansionism and they, too, need help. Support and help should be aimed not only at Serbia, as it tries to bring forward its own political regeneration, but at all the other countries around that have suffered so grievously. What are the Government doing to make those aims a priority in the European Council of Ministers, as that is where the immediate task surely lies?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in congratulating the Minister on her Statement. However, I shall depart a little from the tone of his questions. I should say, first, that we on these Benches echo the congratulations of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others on the extraordinary courage shown by the Serbian people. It is worth remembering that many of them had no idea of the consequences that might follow their actions. This is a moment for celebration throughout the whole of Europe at what has been a remarkable expression of "people power".
	Secondly, perhaps I may say--although I recognise that this will be a contentious remark--that many on these Benches believe that, despite some mistakes with tragic consequences, and the NATO bombing of Serbia, there is little doubt that Milosevic would still be in place if the Government had not had the courage, along with their NATO allies, to intervene in Kosovo. In many ways, this development represents a major justification of that intervention, with excellent consequences as regards the future of the whole of the continent of Europe.
	Thirdly, I offer my congratulations, which I believe are appropriate, to Russia on its helpful role, after some early differences of opinion, in bringing about the decision made by Mr Milosevic finally to leave his post, albeit that he still hopes to hang on within the political scene.
	I believe that the response of the European Union has been amazingly rapid. The General Affairs Council and the Commission deserve our unreserved congratulations on the line they have taken. I wish that other countries had acted with equal speed. In some cases--the United States comes to mind--they are still delaying a response. I am sure that that response will soon be forthcoming, even if not as speedy or generous as that of the European Union.
	Having made those remarks, perhaps I may put two direct questions to the Minister. First, in the course of the Statement the Minister mentioned the Balkan stability pact and CARDS, the proposal for particular aid to be directed to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the case of the stability pact, which seems to us an extremely constructive approach to the rebuilding of the former republic, can she tell the House whether representatives of Montenegro in particular could be involved in discussions about the pact? In many ways, the adoption of an economic approach to the relationship between Serbia and Montenegro may prove less contentious and more rewarding than immediately to try to address the constitutional issues. The same could be said, I believe--using a slightly different tone of voice--with regard to Kosovo.
	Can the Minister also say whether immediate action will be taken to unblock the river Danube and to ensure that oil supplies reach Serbia? As Members of the House will recognise, nothing can equal an immediate indication of the appreciation of Europe for what has been done by the Serb people to consolidate them in their view that democracy is a very good idea.
	My second question concerns the continuation of the limited sanctions with regard to the financial holdings of the former regime. Many on these Benches feel that this may be one of the more constructive ways to attempt to deal with what one might describe as "rogue governments", albeit not rogue states. More specifically, can the Minister comment on the statement made by Carla del Ponti, the chief prosecutor for the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, as regards the 100 so-called Swiss funds which, she has claimed, could be recipients of illegal funds leaving the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be used by Milosevic and his cronies? In relation to that, can she further comment on the £30 million said to have been transferred either to Russia or to China from the Milosevic family in an attempt to ensure that its future looks far more attractive than its record for one moment deserves?
	I wish the former republic a very important and constructive role in the Balkans in the future. Once again, we on these Benches deeply welcome the Government's Statement.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly welcome the comments and congratulations offered by both the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I reiterate the words of the noble Baroness when she spoke of the extraordinary courage demonstrated by the Serbian people. Indeed, I agree with the comment she made to the effect that, had we not been robust in our intervention in Yugoslavia, these events would not have taken place.
	Perhaps I may turn immediately to some of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We agree that the emphasis should be laid on practical help and assistance. We are not rushing in. The assistance we have offered has been clearly focused. However, I respectfully suggest that the EU was right to move swiftly. The Serbian people had been told that the sanctions were directed towards the regime, not towards them. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, the people took their courage in both hands. They deserve to have that courage recognised. For that reason, we say that it was right and proper that the EU moved so swiftly in relation to the sanctions. We have joined in those developments. Indeed, it is good to see the nations of Europe acting together to the benefit of another partner in Europe.
	As regards financial reform, of course such reform is necessary. When we move forward to the stability pact, it is right that the financial institutions and the way in which they operate will be matters of concern. In relation to regional issues, this change in Serbia will confer immediate benefits on the countries around Serbia. They, too, will feel the immediate and positive results affecting the whole of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Her partners will now feel a good deal more comfortable than they did while Mr Milosevic was in control.
	Montenegro has already benefited. We know that her president, President Djukanovic--who had organised a boycott of the elections, which he considered to be illegitimate--has warmly welcomed the victory. It is now up to the governments in Belgrade and Podgorica to settle the details of their future relationship. This they are now trying to do.
	The United Kingdom has supported the proposal of the European Commission to offer 20 million euros of exceptional financial assistance to Montenegro. This is now being considered by the European Parliament. The total amount made available to Montenegro by the EU since April 1998 is 82.7 million euros. Chris Patten recently announced that the amount allocated to Montenegro under the EU's OBNOVA Project 2000 will be doubled to 20 million euros, with a further 5 million euros to be made available for quick-start infrastructure projects. We are moving ahead on those issues. Furthermore, the EU has also provided technical assistance designed to help with economic reforms in key areas. In terms of supporting Montenegro, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that, along with our European partners, we are doing a great deal to help them to move further.
	As regards the river Danube, the House will know that much of the difficulty was caused by Milosevic himself being obstructive about this matter. We had provided 85 per cent of the money in relation to the restructuring project. We hope that that can now go ahead with greater speed, to the betterment of the position of the peoples of Yugoslavia.
	Certain sanctions still remain in place in relation to the Milosevic regime. We have consulted with the new president and his new government to consider how those sanctions should best continue. Sanctions will continue, it is hoped, to limit the movements of Milosevic and his cohort as well as to prevent the movement of their funds. We think that a balance has been struck here. In many ways we have relieved the peoples of Yugoslavia from the sanctions which impinged on them, but we have left in place those which, it is hoped, will inure to the disadvantage of Milosevic and his cohort.

Lord Roper: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, apart from the help being provided by the European Union in relation to the new administration in Belgrade, the United Kingdom should consider what it can do to help on a bilateral level? I am thinking in particular of help in developing a post-communist public administration.
	Does the Minister also agree that the words she spoke as regards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia becoming a part of Europe in every sense means that the people in Belgrade can now look forward to eventual membership of the European Union?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we shall energetically consider on an ongoing basis the kind of assistance we can properly give to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In doing so, we shall obviously participate fully with the EU. The peoples of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be able to look forward to the same opportunities for stability and integration in the long term as other peoples in the rest of Europe. They have seen all around them the benefits that accrue from democratic membership of the European family, and they have chosen to take a step which will enable them possibly to join that family in the future. We think that it was the right choice and the right step for them to have taken.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would assist enormously our relationship with the new Serbia if compensation could now be offered to the civilian--I emphasise "civilian"--casualties of NATO bombing? We should remember that the new president of Serbia, the new president of Yugoslavia, has been highly critical of the NATO bombing campaign.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. But it is important to remember what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, outlined--namely, that this beneficial change to the peoples of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would not have occurred but for our actions. Therefore I am not able to indicate at this stage that there is any cause for us to change the position we have expressed in relation to what has flowed from those actions. We were right to take those actions. It was painful; it was difficult; we did not like it. But it was the only way, and we have been proven right.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government's Statement. I am sure that we all welcome the remarkable turn of events that we have witnessed in the past week.
	I agree with the Minister's comments, but we need to do something to encourage the turn of events. Will the Government give further thought to the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of providing aid for clearing the Danube and ensuring that it works effectively? It is very important that Mr Kostunica sees benefits flowing at once to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to Serbia as a result of these remarkable events. His position will be strengthened if the right kind of support is given from the West. It should not be seen as meddling but as rapid economic support. I hope that it is something which the Government, together with other nations of the European Community, will bring rapidly into effect.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with many of the noble Lord's comments. I should remind the House that the EU is funding already 85 per cent of the costs of clearing the Danube. Reconstruction needs must be carefully assessed before decisions can be taken on individual projects. Now that Milosevic is out of the way, we can continue with greater rapidity.
	The United Kingdom and the EU already are helping Serbia. The EU will now look urgently at the aid that Serbia will need, but it is too early to put a figure on major reconstruction assistance. The first task is for the international financial institutions, at the request of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities, to send a needs assessment mission. Once the new government has accepted its conclusions and is clearly committed to a programme of economic reform, a donor conference can be organised. The EU will have a key role to play in supporting reform within the existing financial perspective. The EU will continue to provide technical assistance.
	The issue of aid is extremely important. The clearance of the Danube at Novi Sad remains a priority. The EU will be supporting the efforts of the Danube Commission states to get an early start to the work. Much can now be done. We should congratulate the Yugoslav people on making this change possible.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on the Statement in regard to the rehabilitation and repair of the infrastructure of Montenegro. In the course of my contacts with the leaders of that country over many years, it was clear to me that they never supported the Belgrade regime.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Montenegro has been in a very difficult position. One of the benefits of the changes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is that the healing process can now begin. It is to be hoped that we can work together with the peoples of the Federal Republic to strengthen their country and to restore it to its previous good health.

Lord Richard: My Lords, it is a matter of some rejoicing that the people of Serbia have changed their government by democratic means. It is a matter of greater rejoicing that, from Ireland on the Atlantic as far as Russia, the whole of Europe is now governed by democratically elected governments. However, does my noble friend agree that we should not assume that the new government in Serbia will be nice, gentle, liberal and democratic? From what we know of it so far, it will be a Serbian nationalist government, albeit one that has been democratically elected. We should perhaps await the outcome of four tests. First, what will be the new government's attitude towards Kosovo? Secondly, what will happen between Serbia and Montenegro? Thirdly, what will happen with the Serbs in Bosnia, who have clearly been influenced in the past by events in Belgrade? And, fourthly, what will happen with Mr Milosevic and a possible criminal trial? We should apply those four tests and perhaps not be quite so euphoric. Although I welcome the fact that the changes have taken place democratically, we should wait a little while to see how things settle down.
	Finally, can my noble friend say a word about the current level of United Kingdom diplomatic representation in Belgrade? What is happening there?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's caution. He is right to draw attention to those important issues. However, we should look first at what we know. We know that the new president did not agree with the Milosevic regime. We know that he used the democratic process through elections to gain power; and we know that he did so without the use of violence. All those are good things. Obviously we need to be cautious--we would be cautious with any new government--but that is why, as I hope I have made clear both in the Statement and in my comments, we are trying to work together in partnership with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
	The tests in relation to assessment of need will be dependent upon meeting standards that we all agree are appropriate. Therefore we should not besmirch this moment of joy by being too pessimistic about the future. We should look at what we know. We should be cautious about the way in which we plan the future, but this is a moment for joy--a moment which we hope will last for a long time.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us if the European Union is committed to paying for all the clearing of the Danube and the rebuilding of its bridges now that the ridiculous objections of Milosevic have been withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the European Union has already committed itself to providing 85 per cent of the money needed for this task. Milosevic obviously had to allow access and agree to various other issues, which he refused to do. That blockage has now been removed and the steps which need to be taken to clear the Danube can continue without further obstruction. It is right that that should be a priority. It will be a priority with the new government and, together with our EU partners, we shall do all we can to ensure that that work is carried out as speedily as possible.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that the new Serbia also has a tremendous problem in dealing with the 250,000 Serbs who were expelled from the Krajina in Croatia, as well as over 100,000 Serbs who have fled Kosovo and lost their homes since the events there? There is some reason to be very careful about what we say about telling the new Serbian government what their attitude should be. I hope that our approach will be generous in helping them to solve what are some very serious internal problems.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the House that the attitude adopted by Her Majesty's Government has been one of listening and working in partnership. From the moment the election took place, we were in contact with the new government in Belgrade. We have listened carefully to the requests that they have made. We are of the view that the new government are in the best position to identify the type and nature of the aid that they will need in order to complete their task. We shall do that with energy, and robustly, as I said earlier; but we shall do it also with a weather eye on the circumstances in which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia finds itself. This a new beginning, but that beginning must be informed by what has gone on in the past.

Lord Acton: My Lords, what has been the response of the United States to these events?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the United States has certainly congratulated the new president and has welcomed the change. It is right to say that it has not as yet, to the best of my knowledge and belief, expressly offered any aid or any specific package. One would certainly hope that that would follow relatively speedily. We have set an example by what we in the European Union have done. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said, the EU response has been swift and appropriate. Obviously, we invite others to follow our example.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, my noble friend spoke about a structured democratic dialogue with the Albanians in Kosovo. I was in Kosovo last week and spent some time visiting a number of installations. One thing that I learnt very clearly is that the Serb communities there feel extremely vulnerable. Many of them will feel more vulnerable now that Milosevic has gone. What can my noble friend say to members of that small community about the protection that they will receive--and, it is to be hoped, continue to receive--from the international community in terms of their commitment to maintaining their minority rights in Albanian Kosovo?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the establishment of democratic government in Belgrade opens the way to the beginning of a dialogue between Serbs and Albanians. We have no illusions that this will be easy, but we are committed to a multi-ethnic future for Kosovo. It is clear that Kosovo should have a high degree of autonomy. However, we are not in favour of independence--although, of course, nothing can be ruled out. If we had not stood up to Milosevic's repression in Kosovo, we should not be inviting President Kostunica to next summer's meeting of the EU heads of state and government. We have an opportunity for creative dialogue. The Serbians currently living in Kosovo will not be neglected and we shall be working with energy to make sure that there is a satisfactory conclusion for all the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following upon the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, could the European Union mission not at least have on its agenda the needs of citizens who were the victims of bomb damage? Why should this in any way condone any action by the NATO powers, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, was a necessary act?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in all that Her Majesty's Government are doing to assist the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, we have the needs of its citizens in our sights. The restructuring of that country, the return to good governance and the ability to enjoy freedoms will all directly affect and meet the needs of the people of Yugoslavia. We hope that that will be a real compensation for the people of Yugoslavia, because they will, it is hoped, be able to enjoy the freedoms that we in many European countries enjoy.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to weary the House again, but I asked my noble friend about the level of diplomatic representation in Belgrade.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon. It is right to say that we are hopeful of being able to restore diplomatic representation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A request in relation to the matter either has been made, or will be made in the very short term.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that Mr Kostunica has called for reconciliation within Yugoslavia. I hope that he will not be put under too much pressure to do too much too soon. He already has an extremely difficult job in bringing all the strands of opinion and all the differences in Yugoslavia together in order to be able to rule effectively. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account and that she will ensure that her colleagues in the European Union also take it into account.
	Will my noble friend agree that the marvellous events in Serbia last week had nothing to do with the bombing campaign? To suggest that they did is an insult to the Yugoslav people and to the Serbian people in particular? Will she further agree that what those people did was to ensure that the result of a democratic election was upheld and put into place? I hope that we are not going to suggest that this country and the European Union are intent on bombing people into providing the sort of government that they believe they should have.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords, it is clear that it has never been part of Her Majesty's Government's policy that people should be bombed in order to obtain the sort of government that we should like. However, we must accept the historical fact. The people of Serbia were oppressed and had a limited opportunity to express themselves. Everything we know indicates that they gained courage from the fact that other countries were willing to help and willing to express a view, and that Mr Milosevic would not go unchecked. That message must have given great courage to the people of Serbia: the courage to know that they, too, could stand up and say no--which is exactly what they did. They should be congratulated on doing so. But it would be naive and foolish to think that the bombing that took place in order to force Milosevic into withdrawal did not have a material effect on the events that followed.

Sierra Leone

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on behalf of the Government on Sierra Leone.
	Before I do so, however, I should like to take this opportunity to remember the sacrifice of Bombardier Brad Tinnion, who, sadly, was killed during last month's operation, and pay tribute to the bravery of our Armed Forces, who often operate in very difficult and dangerous circumstances.
	As I made clear in answering Questions in your Lordships' House last week, the Government's strategy towards Sierra Leone was set out in a Statement by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on 6th June. That strategy remains unchanged. Our principal objective is to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of stability and peace, and are freed from the violence of a brutal rebel minority. Following the Summer Recess, the Government now believe that it is appropriate that the House should be updated on our plans. However, the Government are not prepared to reveal details that might in any way undermine the security of our Armed Forces or give assistance to their adversaries.
	The key to a long-term solution in Sierra Leone remains the establishment of effective and accountable government armed forces. We have sought to help the Government of Sierra Leone by establishing a series of short term training teams and, in the longer term, the UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team.
	Building on our work so far, we shall be continuing our programme of training, equipping and advising the Sierra Leone army in several areas: a series of three further training teams will be deployed to train fresh troops--a team from 1st Prince of Wales Own Regiment will deploy at the end of October for the first of these; we shall provide continuation and specialist training covering topics such as leadership and logistics; a package of equipment support for the SLA to include personal equipment for the trainees; and we shall adjust our command and control arrangements, through the provision of an operational (one star) level HQ to command the overall UK effort and to provide high level operational advice to the SLA.
	The overall number of UK troops on the ground will increase from the current figure of around 300 to somewhat over 400, depending on the training under way at any one time.
	A key element of our strategy is to help the Sierra Leone Army develop its ability to undertake effective operations in order to maintain pressure on the RUF. In doing this, the safety of Armed Forces personnel in Sierra Leone remains uppermost in our minds. I can assure the House that their security is, and will be, kept under constant review.
	The Government also recognise the role played by UNAMSIL. We support the work of the United Nations to restore peace in Sierra Leone. We remain ready under a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the UN last year to deploy UK-based forces up to brigade level in support of UN peacekeeping operations, including Sierra Leone. This would draw from our Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. Final decisions on any deployment would of course remain with the Government. But the speed and scale of our deployment in May is a clear illustration of what we can do, should we judge it necessary and appropriate.
	To speed up our ability to respond, our deployed headquarters would be capable of taking such a force under command. We are also prepared, in response to a request from the UN Secretariat, to offer staff officers to the headquarters of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone, in addition to the 15 military observers that we already have with the mission.
	Britain's continued support for the people of Sierra Leone in their search for peace and stability has been recognised around the world and has been highly praised. The measures that I have announced today will build on our effort so far and will support the vital role that the United Nations is playing to bring an end to the violence and to restore peace. I commend them to the House.
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for her Statement to the House this afternoon: everything comes to him who waits. I should also totally and unequivocably underwrite her tribute to Bombardier Tinnion and, indeed, to all those who have given their lives in military operations wherever they may be.
	This afternoon's Statement is most opportune because we are now at the end of the rainy season in Sierra Leone and operations may well be expected to escalate. I should further say that I totally accept that the Government should not reveal details that would give assistance to the adversaries of our Armed Forces. I hope that I shall not have to press the noble Baroness on such a point.
	However, the Minister named three areas of operation in her Statement. We note that further training teams are to be sent. I hope that there will be a clear distinction between the training role and the role as part of UNAMSIL. I also hope that measures will be taken to ensure that the equipment we are providing will not fall into the wrong hands, as has happened on occasions in the past.
	The command structure that was mentioned in the Statement is one thing that it would seem the Sierra Leone army cannot provide for itself. I ask the noble Baroness to tell the House what is the difference between,
	"to command the overall UK effort",
	and,
	"to provide high level operational advice to the SLA"?
	Indeed, what is the relationship between the British force (now to number 500) and UNAMSIL? What is the effect of the withdrawal of Indian troops? Are the British expected to pick up the tab?
	Can the Minister say what United Nations is doing overall? Do not the Koreans, the Poles or the Canadians, as well as various other nations, have brigade structures that would enable them to provide a command structure in Sierra Leone? I ask the noble Baroness to look into her crystal ball, which is never easy to do. However, I hope that she may be able to assist your Lordships.
	Will the Government keep control over all decisions to deploy, and over the rules of engagement, as mentioned in a Question tabled last week by my noble friend Lord Cranborne? What is the likelihood of the commitment that has been made being extended? Further--as this comes into the Statement--what constitutes a satisfactory conclusion to operations? All sides of your Lordships' House would wish to see such a conclusion and one that would allow British forces to get out.
	This must not be an open-ended commitment to Sierra Leone. There is a distinction between the foreign policy framework and the precise extent of our military commitment. That distinction must be kept clear. I do not blame the Government for adjusting their actions to meet changing circumstances. But I believe that we should object to bland assurances that the circumstances are not changing. I am afraid that this Statement indicates that there is a vestige of a feeling that there may be a likelihood of extending the United Kingdom commitment. When she replies, I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that possibility.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement. Even if she looks into her crystal ball, I certainly understand that it may not be wise for her to tell us exactly what she sees in it under current circumstances. I also share the regret and sympathy of the House that we lost Bombardier Tinnion. However, we have to recognise that, in the United Kingdom's commitment to support the UN in reconstructing failed states, we may occasionally have to accept a number of casualties.
	From these Benches, I offer strong support for the Government in today's decision. In disagreeing with the Conservative spokesman, perhaps I may point out that the reconstruction of weak and failed states in Africa, south of the Sahara, looks like being one of the necessary commitments that this country, in collaboration with others, will have to undertake over the next few years. We must recognise that this is not necessarily a matter of "quick in, quick out". As in south-eastern Europe, it is a long-term commitment in which we hope that one will be able to move from first-line troops, to training and then to policing. We must also recognise that it is in the United Kingdom's strongest interests to support the reconstruction of effective statehood in these states and that, if we fail to do so, the consequences will, among other things, turn up on the streets of London in the form of refugees and migrants from those states.
	As Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, has said on a number of occasions, Sierra Leone is a test case for the United Nations and for Britain's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the United Kingdom should provide additional staff officers--as it did for the UN operation--additional training for the army, and, if I understand the Statement correctly, back-up forces to intervene if necessary.
	The Statement refers to drawing from our Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. Does this refer purely to the United Kingdom or, in the context of the European defence initiative, are discussions under way with our European partners as to whether countries other than the United Kingdom might be involved? As regards the provision of staff officers to the UN, is that purely a British offer, or are other European states involved?
	The lessons of this operation must be taken into account. In the context of the Brahimi report, and other discussions under way in the United Nations, how far is the United Kingdom giving its full support to learning the lessons of Sierra Leone: the absence of decent command and control and, indeed, decent co-operation among UN forces and the weakness of the UN department of peacekeeping operations, about which we have heard a number of extremely savage criticisms over the past few months? Clearly that needs to be substantially strengthened.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the tributes they paid to Bombadier Tinnion. It behoves us all to remember that when we deploy our Armed Forces we often ask their members to take considerable risks. There is not an armed conflict in the world that does not involve such risks.
	The noble Lord said that he would not ask me to reveal details that would be of assistance to our adversaries, for which I thank him. I remind him and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that my department's offer remains open to give both noble Lords briefings in confidence, should they so wish. The noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is not present at the moment, but I am happy to extend that offer to him.
	The training teams which I mentioned, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred, are the Short Term Training Teams which we discussed in your Lordships' House last week. They are quite distinct from UNAMSIL forces. They are British teams which will be used in the way we discussed last week in order to train some thousand or so personnel from the Sierra Leone armed forces at any one stage. We shall indeed be careful with regard to the distribution of any equipment which we make available to those armed forces.
	The noble Lord also asked about the command structure. The changes to the command structure of the United Kingdom forces which I have described are distinct from the advice which may be available to the Sierra Leone armed forces. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 500 troops. I believe that the figure will be over 400, but I am not sure that we have any confidence that we shall reach the figure of 500. However, we certainly expect to have over 400 troops on the ground at any one time. The noble Lord is right; there will have to be further discussion in the United Nations about what to do to make up the numbers of troops that will be needed under the UNAMSIL banner--if I can put it that way--as a result of the withdrawal of Indian troops.
	The noble Lord enjoined me to look into my crystal ball. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, precisely foretold, I am a little reluctant to do that. As I am sure all noble Lords understand, it is dangerous to speculate on such matters when we have troops on the ground. However, I assure the noble Lord that we shall keep control of our decisions to deploy and, as the noble Lord would expect, of our rules of engagement. A decision about command structure would be taken at the time of any deployment. That would be a United Kingdom decision. I hope that follows up the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made at Question Time last week.
	This matter is kept under constant review. I believe that the noble Lord said that he had the vestige of a feeling that there would be further deployments. I understand that many people have said that they have vestiges of feelings about further deployments. I hope that my comments have conveyed the fact that there has been no change of policy or anything that could be described as "mission creep", or any of the other journalistic terms that are used in this connection. We are consolidating the policy position which we have established.
	The noble Lord asked me what a satisfactory conclusion would comprise. It would be the establishment of peace and stability in Sierra Leone; the establishment of control over the rebels in that unhappy country; and the establishment of proper control over the government forces by a democratically elected government. We are very much working to that end.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked some rather broader questions about our interest in supporting proper development in Sierra Leone. I agree very much with what the noble Lord said about the importance to British interests of supporting such matters as good governance in Sierra Leone, and the importance of understanding that humanitarian ideals are also vitally necessary in that unhappy country. The whole question of poverty must be addressed. Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world. Tackling poverty in that country through carefully targeted, long-term programmes to promote economic and social development is an important facet of any international effort.
	I believe that the United Kingdom is contributing enormously to that effort in the training that we are providing. We have, after all, dedicated some £70 million thus far to our efforts in Sierra Leone. The package I announced today will add additional money to that sum--a further £27 million approximately. The noble Lord mentioned the JRRF and asked whether it would comprise British personnel. It is a British commitment. We made that clear in our Memorandum of Understanding last year. However, nothing stays static in these matters. As developments in Europe take place, there is no reason why we should not perhaps approach our colleagues elsewhere at a suitable time. As of today the commitment I described in the Statement is a British commitment, as are the staff officers. I believe that we are learning lessons. I believe that there are lessons for the United Nations in the way that the mission has been conducted in Sierra Leone. As has been mentioned, I also believe that there are wider issues with regard to the control of the diamond trade and the way in which that has fuelled so much of this vicious and dreadful conflict in Sierra Leone.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that historically peacekeeping missions and, indeed, training missions of the kind that we are conducting in Sierra Leone tend to last for rather longer than we would like? I refer to the operation in Cyprus which has lasted for about 30 years. We do not know how long our various commitments in the Balkans will continue.
	I do not think that the noble Baroness made the next point entirely clear. If we are to have a presumed open- ended interest in putting together, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested, failed countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is the noble Baroness clear that we have sufficient armed forces in terms of sheer numbers of bodies to be able to cope with any commitment that might arise, particularly in the light of the increasingly low morale in the Armed Forces? Those of us who know members of the Armed Forces are aware of that. It is evidenced by the increasingly worrying exit of senior non-commissioned officers and of junior officers of all ranks from all three Armed Forces.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that historically our peacekeeping missions last longer than we would like. They do indeed last but they also keep the peace. They are necessary in countries where otherwise the internal civil strife leads to the atrocities that we have witnessed so unhappily taking place in Sierra Leone. I do not believe that what I have said indicates an open-ended commitment. However, I am not in a position to tell the noble Viscount that it will end at a specific time in the future because that is not realistic. We have to keep the position under constant review. I do not believe that there has been--to use the journalistic term I used a few moments ago--"mission creep". I believe it is very important indeed that the Government have kept a very firm eye on the full range of our commitments overseas.
	The noble Viscount paints a very gloomy picture of morale in our Armed Forces. While I recognise that there is a problem over retention of some of our Armed Forces, I hope that the noble Viscount will be as pleased as I am that last year was the best year for recruitment in the Army for some 10 years. We have sought to address the problem of retention through a number of different means, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House previously. But I assure the noble Viscount that when we make decisions about deployments of the Armed Forces the question of what we have termed overstretch of the Armed Forces is to the forefront of our minds. We recognise that responsibility and will continue to do so.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister spoke about bringing the rebels under control. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the clauses in the Lome agreement which refer to total disarmament and demobilisation of all non-state armed forces still apply? Will she confirm that the objective is to demobilise and disarm the whole of the RUF so that it no longer presents a threat to the state? Is not the ultimate objective of training the armed forces of Sierra Leone that they will, if necessary, be able to undertake offensive actions against the RUF in the north and diamond-producing areas if it is not possible to get it to lay down its arms voluntarily?
	Will the Minister also say something about the status of the so-called civil defence forces, the Kamajors? Will they ever be reintegrated into the regular armed forces of Sierra Leone; or will there continue to be, as there have been in the past, two different sets of armed forces in parallel with the danger of conflict between them which that implies?
	Can the noble Baroness say something about the work of the sanctions committee? She mentioned the need to stop the trade in illicit diamonds. Perhaps she will confirm that at a recent meeting in Geneva some new measures were agreed by the diamond marketing companies of the world to try to prevent these illicit diamonds from reaching world markets. Can the noble Baroness say something about the committee? It was established under the auspices of the United Nations. We gave evidence to it on 31st July about the nature of this trade and about allegations in particular which we made concerning the involvement of the Liberians. Has there been any progress in gaining the co-operation of President Taylor in stopping up the traffic which was alleged to go via Monrovia; and in preventing illicit supplies of arms coming from Liberia and reaching the RUF in the field?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Lome agreement is designed to deliver lasting peace in Sierra Leone. It provides for the permanent cessation of hostilities, as the noble Lord indicates. It also provides for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of all ex-combatants, and for the creation of effective and democratically accountable armed forces to protect the country in the future and the international peacekeeping force to supervise that process. It is implicit in that if we are training the legitimate forces in Sierra Leone, which will be under the control of the democratically elected government, we are training them for a purpose. That is to keep order in their own country. If that means engagement with the RUF, I am afraid that that is what is implied. But it is our firm desire that the RUF will understand that they mean business and that it will see that its own interests lie in a peaceful future for its country.
	The noble Lord asked about integration of other parts of armed groupings within Sierra Leone. Our primary task at present is to try to get the Sierra Leone army on to the right footing. We are far from that at present. That is why Her Majesty's Government have put forward these extra resources which I have described to your Lordships today in order to accelerate that process. But having a firm base for those armed forces, the ways in which others who may wish to take to arms can be dealt with will be a consideration. I believe that the important issue in the first instance is the Sierra Leone armed forces.
	The noble Lord asked about the issue of diamonds. As I believe I mentioned to your Lordships last week, the United Kingdom has been a key mover in what has been described as the Kimberley process--a process led by South Africa--which has recommended an international rough diamond certification scheme. We have also been doing our best through the United Nations Security Council ban on the import and export of Sierra Leone rough diamonds not certified by the Government of Sierra Leone. The noble Lord is right. There are problems with those outside Sierra Leone who perceive their own interests in perhaps not getting that diamond trade under control. There is growing international pressure on Liberia, on President Taylor, to close down its links with the rebels in Sierra Leone in this respect.
	I know that the noble Lord has a wealth of information at his fingertips over Sierra Leone. As he knows, there is a great deal of detail around these issues which we shall be happy to discuss.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I realise that it is my own fault that I am not clear but I should be grateful for clarification.
	The Minister announced two things. First, that there will be an additional 100 (or thereabouts) British trainers to train the Sierra Leone army. Secondly, I think that my noble friend said that there would now have inevitably to be discussions in New York as a result of the withdrawal of the Indian contingent, that the British Government will participate in those discussions with the secretariat in New York, and that we shall be making provisional arrangements internally in the structure and control of our Armed Forces here so that if we wished to make a contribution to the UN force, as emerges from those discussions in New York, we should be in a position to do so.
	I hope that that is right because the British are extremely good at peacekeeping. It is refreshing that in recent years the United Nations has moved away from the old convention: that the permanent members of the Security Council did not engage in peacekeeping exercises. Our Armed Forces are particularly good at this task. I hope that if the UN thinks it right, and we think it right, the Government will be in a position to respond.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend is right in part. Without repeating the Statement, perhaps I may run over the main points. First, starting after the deployment at the end of this month which I described, we are running three more training teams for the Sierra Leone army on the same syllabus we have been running since early June.
	Secondly, we are continuing the specialist training that we have described under the British-led organisation IMATT. Thirdly, we are providing funding for a further package of equipment. That is important to the Government of Sierra Leone. Fourthly, we are establishing an operational level headquarters in Sierra Leone to ensure effective command and control of the UK effort. Those are four important points.
	The noble Lord is right about the Joint Rapid Reaction Force. We stand by our Memorandum of Understanding to deploy a rapid reaction force of up to brigade size. We are also prepared to step up our contribution to the UN mission in Sierra Leone by offering a number of staff officers.
	I did not want simply to agree with the noble Lord, because he understandably overlooked some key points from the Statement. I thank him for his comments about our peacekeeping prowess. We have much to be proud of on that. Wherever I go around the world, British peacekeeping expertise is rightly admired and very much wanted in areas of difficulty.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have a somewhat peripheral interest, but following the comments of my noble friend Lord Cranborne and of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, can the Minister say, in percentage terms, what level of operations the British Army can sustain in the long term over several years?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I suspect that the noble Earl would expect, I shall have to seek further advice on that. I suspect that the figure would vary from time to time. At times we have had high levels of deployment. At the height of the Kosovo crisis, our deployment of our Armed Forces was well over 40 per cent. I am happy to say that it is now 20 per cent less than at that time.
	The noble Earl's question is understandable, but it may be difficult to answer because of the indications that that might give about our military strength to those who might not be too unhappy to exploit such information. If I can give the noble Earl any further help, I shall of course write to him.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about the United Nations force. There is no doubt that the British forces have been competent and efficient and are responsible for what level of order there is in that country today. What about the United Nations forces? They have been pathetic. They seem unable to defend themselves and large numbers of prisoners have been taken by the rebels. Are the orders being changed? Is there any hope of a competent peacekeeping and peacemaking force emerging from the United Nations?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord's judgment on the United Nations forces in Sierra Leone is a little harsh. There has been widespread deployment by a number of different countries, which have been prepared to commit considerable numbers. A number of countries in the region have, understandably, been foremost among those who have deployed troops. I shall be happy to let the noble Lord have details of those numbers.
	I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that there is now an issue about increasing the number of troops available to UNAMSIL. The United Nations has made it clear that it is looking for an increase in the numbers. The current shortfall has been exacerbated by the Indian authorities declaring that they wish to withdraw in due course. That is not a surprise. They always said that their involvement was time-limited. They have also helpfully said that they will dovetail their withdrawal from Sierra Leone with the arrival of new contingents.
	We should be careful about leaping to judgments on the operation of the forces in Sierra Leone. We wish them well and believe that they are a power for good in that country. They are there to demonstrate the interest among the international community in securing peace in Sierra Leone.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, first, what commitment have we made to the UN under the Memorandum of Understanding? As I remember it, we have said that we will put up to a brigade at the disposal of the United Nations. Can we have an assurance that our troops will not be under United Nations command? Secondly, the UN's Brahimi report makes it clear that the unfortunate troops on the ground have to look to a command structure of about five people in New York operating until five o'clock on any day. Does not that make it even more important that we know what the mandate is?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, under the Memorandum of Understanding the rapid reaction capability could consist of a joint force headquarters with strategic communications support, together with transport, helicopters and medical units. I have already said that it could be of brigade size and could have logistic and administrative support assets. I hope that the noble Baroness understands that there are sound reasons why I cannot give a full breakdown of every part of the JRRF. A decision about the command structure would be taken at the time of deployment. I assure the noble Baroness that it would be a United Kingdom decision.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, one of the measures of insecurity in countries such as Sierra Leone is the number of internally displaced people. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the number of displaced people in the care of voluntary organisations and Churches has diminished, particularly around Freetown and the other centres? Does she have any breakdown of that number?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have a breakdown of that number, but I assure the noble Earl that, with other development partners in the European Union, we are continuing to provide substantial support to meet the continuing humanitarian needs of the Sierra Leonean refugees. The noble Earl understands that we need to consider not just the number of refugees who have gone to neighbouring countries, but the number of individuals who are internally displaced within Sierra Leone. Such support is being channelled through the relevant UN agencies, such as the UNHCR and the international non-governmental organisations and their local partners. I shall try to get some figures for the noble Earl, but it is very difficult to get firm data about what is happening across Sierra Leone, because our troops are concentrated in particular places. However, I shall try my best to ensure that what information we have is made available.

Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Bill [H.L.]

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
	My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns apologises that she is unable to be in her place at the present time. I am dealing with the Bill on her behalf.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.--(Baroness Seccombe.)
	On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before we do so, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I wonder whether we should, indeed, again resolve ourselves into a Committee on the Bill. Noble Lords may wonder why the Minister has used the word "again". I would not blame them if they had forgotten that we have already had a day on this Bill. The first day of Committee took place as recently as 11th May and the Bill then disappeared into what I believe astronomers call a "black hole". That is my first point: that the thread or continuity of the Bill has been seriously disturbed by the long wait between the first and second days.
	The second point that I want to make before we decide whether to proceed with the second day of Committee is that there are hundreds--and I mean hundreds--of government amendments. Since our first day in Committee, the Bill has been substantially rewritten. Indeed--this may be simply by accident but I suspect that it is by design--on the last day on which your Lordships sat at the end of July, 48 pages of government amendments arrived. I was here on the last day but the amendments did not catch up with me until the first week of the Recess, by which time, of course, people had scattered. Therefore, it was not a very convenient day on which to receive 48 pages of amendments.
	I could perhaps forgive the Government. They re-examined their Bill and realised that it was not properly drafted. I thought, "Well, 48 pages of government amendments we can live with". However, back we came in the overspill and on the very first Monday another 48 pages of government amendments arrived on your Lordships' desks. Today, noble Lords will see that the Marshalled List is about the same size, if not bigger, than the original Bill. While I and the Liberal Democrats have a few modest amendments, it is a fact that of 135 pages, more than 100 are the responsibility of the Government. New schedules have been introduced and, even worse, amendment after amendment has been made to clauses and schedules which makes them almost incomprehensible to the average, non-lawyer reader.
	The position is entirely unsatisfactory. This is an important Bill. It deals with the very fabric of our democratic society: free--I emphasise the word--political parties, free from government. It seems to me that the Bill unnecessarily ties up those free parties. The amendments--page after page of them--are a most unsatisfactory way for the Government to treat such issues. I shall not go into the manner in which the amendments have been drafted. The groupings, which we shall come to later, will be almost indigestible to your Lordships; they are certainly indigestible to me.
	If this is the best that the Government can do, it would be far better if they decided not to proceed with the second day of Committee. They should take the Bill away for a new draftsman and new officials to see whether they can come up with a shorter and simpler measure which achieves the objectives without all the red tape.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is probably par for the course for oppositions to express a certain synthetic outrage at the behaviour of governments. I am not sure that I want to go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with regard to the Bill being taken away. However, the Minister's response is made all the more difficult by the weight and strength of the complaints of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
	The situation would not be so bad if this were the only instance when this has happened. However, we are moving away from this House acting as a revisory and advisory Chamber almost to the point where we are dealing with Bills which are different from the ones considered in the other place. If we and the other place are to do our jobs properly, I believe that government or the usual channels must consider this matter.
	I said to one of our researchers, "I intend to say X, Y and Z on Tuesday". He replied, "Actually, you said that on the first day of Committee"--not that that will stop me saying it again, of course. I believe that the combination of the inordinately long gap between the two Committee days and the extraordinary cascade of amendments make the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, valid and difficult for the Minister to reply to.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I want to make this point in as unpartisan a way as possible. Governments of both complexions increasingly have been guilty of the type of outrage that my noble friend described. It is true that, as any form of existing business manager can testify, that is due largely to the avalanche of legislation and the inordinate hurry of all governments to introduce it as swiftly as possible in one legislative Session. This has become a disease which is undermining the standing and respect of Parliament.
	I have perhaps bored your Lordships a number of times during the course of debates on reform of your Lordships' House. However, I believe that the time has come for noble Lords to consider seriously whether this type of behaviour is beginning to undermine the central purpose of your Lordships' House. I have always believed that that purpose is to ensure, with the greatest respect to another place, that the other place, under the control of the government of the day as it is, has a chance to do its job properly.
	This is not the only example of such behaviour. As I say, governments of both complexions have been guilty of it. However, I am concerned that another place will find itself dragooned into looking at what is, in a number of parts, virtually a rewritten Bill at the fag end of the Session without the time to consider properly a subject which, as my noble friend pointed out, is fundamental to the health of our parliamentary and representative system.
	I hope that the Minister, who is always most courteous to your Lordships, will be able to give some reassurance that, if we are to proceed with the Bill, adequate time will be given to another place, which is most directly affected by the provisions of the Bill, to examine the large parts of it which have been largely rewritten at the Government's instance because of the hurry in which their business managers had to introduce it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, having fought and won 10 general elections, naturally I am interested in the subject matter of this Bill. I have been in Parliament altogether for 55 years but I cannot recollect any occasion, as described by my noble friend on the Front Bench, when a Bill before your Lordships' House is being virtually rewritten by a mass of rather obscure amendments.
	Surely the right course is for the Government to withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it, if necessary, for the first time in your Lordships' House so that Members of both Houses can see without an absurd amount of detailed scrutiny what the Bill attempts to do. I hope that what my noble friend has suggested will be observed by the Government because I believe that, as part of our parliamentary democracy, he is right.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords' contributions in this stimulating opening to our afternoon's deliberations. I was going to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for what I felt was friendly fire, or at least constructive criticism. I have to take that on the chin. I accept that we, in government, have in some ways been culpable in creating the difficulties that have surrounded this Bill.
	But that said, there are a number of points which should be fairly considered. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that the Bill had been largely rewritten. I accept that there are a large number of amendments. There is no doubt about that. But that is due to a number of factors. One of those is that as we said throughout the course of this Bill, in another place and here too, we are trying to get it right. Getting it right comes at a price. As Members of the Opposition will appreciate, getting it right means that sometimes you have to consult. That word was used extensively yesterday on the airwaves. It happens to be true about this Bill. We want to get it right because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, this goes to the heart of our constitution. If we are to do that, then it is down to us to ensure that when we do, we reach the right conclusions.
	This is a complex Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made a very important point. This Bill is about the other place. It is about regulating the way in which elections are conducted, donations to parties are made and sponsorship is organised. There has not been much regulation of those activities in the past. This Bill, in one leap, attempts to set that right so that we can demonstrate publicly that we are cleaning up our act.
	Simplicity is what we should like to achieve. This Bill is complex to achieve some simple ends. Regulation is necessary. That is what we have tried to do in seeking to bring forward amendments. We have consulted and listened carefully to all parties. We shall continue to do that throughout the course of this legislation.
	I make one final point on government amendments. Yes, there are a number of government amendments. Noble Lords will no doubt have noticed that there are some amendments to amendments. Many of those amendments are triggered by earlier amendments discussed throughout the passage of the legislation. We shall bring forward many amendments during the course of our debates and deliberations. They are stimulated also by reasonable points made by members of opposition parties who have co-operated in making sure that we try to get it right.
	Therefore, we have had an unfortunate break in the thread of continuity--a useful expression, I thought. But that has enabled us to have time to pause for reflection. We have a busy agenda. We want to see that agenda through. It is true that this Bill has had to take its place in a longer queue. But now we are here, I suggest to your Lordships that it is only right that we should give it due consideration.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assure us that the Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that when the Bill returns to another place it will not be rushed through and another place will have a proper opportunity to discuss the massive changes which have been made since it left that House.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously, I cannot speak for another place but it will no doubt wish to consider carefully that very helpful consideration. I believe that it should.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House again in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
	Clause 12 [Education about electoral and democratic systems]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 8, line 30, leave out ("and any pending such systems,").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49 which stand in my name. I shall also, of course, address the same issues as does my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth in his Amendment No. 42A and as my noble friend Lady Fookes does in her Amendment No. 47.
	These amendments taken together could have been narrowed down to one amendment; namely, that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill. Indeed, if the Minister really wants to simplify the Bill, he could move to strike out Clause 12 because nothing in that clause is really relevant to what many of us believe an electoral commission should be about.
	I take the view that the electoral commission is the referee on elections and electoral matters. It is not in the business of being a propagandist for anything in the system. It is there to be a referee; to see that there is fair play; to see that the rules on donations are obeyed; to see that the reporting of expenditure during elections is properly obeyed, and so on; and, although it is dealt with extremely inadequately indeed, as I hope we shall be able to persuade the Committee later, to see that referendums are properly and fairly conducted in this country--if we have to have referendums, that is.
	This series of amendments addresses a role to be given to the commission in Clause 12. The particular words on which I wish to focus are "current electoral systems in the United Kingdom", "promote public awareness of" and "any pending such systems". Further on there is reference to:
	"current systems of local government and national government",
	and "any pending such systems" and it then goes on to refer to,
	"the institutions of the European Union".
	When one goes back to what I might call the source document for all this legislation--namely, the Neill report--Members of the Committee will look in vain for any suggestion in that report that the commission should have any of those responsibilities. Indeed, although not directly but indirectly referring to other tasks to be given to the commission, the Neill committee says very clearly at paragraph 11.4,
	"We agree that a new body is needed not only on the above grounds",
	and it has gone into all the arguments that we rehearsed on Second Reading,
	"but also in order to implement many of the specific recommendations in this report".
	As I have said, none of the roles in Clause 12 is recommended in the Neill report. It goes on to say:
	"We would only make the obvious point that the Election Commission cannot, as some of our witnesses seemed to believe, solve all problems and be a panacea for all ills. It is tempting, but not sensible, to say whenever in difficulty, 'Leave it to the Commission'. That is an approach we have sought to avoid in this report. Government, Parliament and others have to accept their responsibilities".
	It seems to me that on all the issues involved in this group of amendments are issues for governments, political parties and for Parliament. They are not issues for the elctoral commission. We all know, because we all read the press, that there are some talks going on between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats about changing our electoral system. I do not quite know where we are on that, but the talks are going on.
	Would it be the electoral commission's responsibility to mount a campaign explaining what the different electoral systems are? For example, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead--surprise, surprise--came to the conclusion that we should have PR and it should be the alternative vote system. Parliament has not decided anything about that yet; it has not been asked. I suspect that the Government have decided; they do not want to make any changes, but they want to string their Liberal friends along for a little longer.
	But leave that aside. The fact is that on the table, there is an alternative vote proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I ask a specific question. Would it be within the powers and responsibility of the commission, as laid out in this clause, to explain to the electorate what an AV system is?
	Let us go a little further. In Scotland, when we were discussing what kind of electoral system the new Parliament should have, there was some argument about what kind of PR system we should have. At the stage that it was still being argued, would it have been within the powers of the electoral commission to go out and do a propaganda exercise in favour of one or other system?
	Would it be a reasonable responsibility of the electoral commission to explain the new system to the electorate once Parliament had decided that the Scottish Parliament would be elected by the top-up list system? If that is what the Government mean by "pending system", I am less concerned. However, I would be greatly concerned if it meant any kind of system floating about in the ether, or even any system still being discussed in Parliament but not yet agreed.
	I therefore see no need for this funny wording; that is, "pending systems". My noble friend Lord Norton may have given the Government a way out of this dilemma by making clear exactly what would be within the responsibility of the electoral commission.
	That is the first of my series of questions: what exactly does the Minister mean by "pending systems"? I certainly hope that it does not mean that the electoral commission will be asked to do the kind of job that I freely accept that the Liberal Democrat Party should be doing; that is, to advocate changes in our electoral system. As Members of the Committee know, I do not greatly approve of such changes. However, that is their decision. They can get on with it. I would have no problem with that job being done by the Electoral Reform Society. However, I certainly do not think that it should be done by the electoral commission, which is supposed to be the neutral referee on electoral matters.
	I turn to the second interesting point. Clause 12 (1)(c) provides that the commission shall promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union. I am not one of those who get too upset about the European Union. I am reasonably content with membership of it. However, I suspect that, like this Government, it has a terrific desire to regulate, interfere and control. I tend to agree with those members of the present Government who think that we should not adopt the euro; at least not for a long time and not until it proves to be a good deal more successful than at present. We have got out of the position of being a member of a currency that requires to be sustained on the foreign exchange markets. I believe that we should stay in that happy position.
	I do not understand the meaning of subsection (1)(c):
	"the institutions of the European Union".
	Does that mean that in the current situation, for example, the electoral commission would explain the advantages of the euro to the people of Britain? Would it explain how the European Central Bank works? What will it explain to the people of Britain? What do those words mean? What has that to do with the electoral commission as set out in the Neill report and that which we all agreed needs to be a referee? It cannot be a referee if it is being a propagandist for a politically controversial issue. Whether Members of the Committee like it or not, the issue is politically controversial. The electoral commission would be brought into disrepute if it was seen to be taking one side or the other in the arguments for or against the euro. That must be the last thing we want.
	Amendment No. 49 would remove subsection (4)(b), which states:
	"making grants to other persons or bodies for the purpose of enabling them to carry out such programmes".
	That refers to programmes of education or information. What are we talking of here? We come back to pending systems, European institutions, changes that may be coming over the horizon or those that the Government may wish. What kind of bodies will be funded by the electoral commission? What kind of work will they do?
	My right honourable friend Sir George Young asked similar questions in the other place. He stated:
	"That is part of the Government's citizenship education proposals, but it is wholly inappropriate to place that duty with the commission. As drafted, the Bill brings the electoral commission--a fully independent body, free of any suspicion of political partisanship, to use the Government's own words--right into issues of the fiercest political controversy".--[Official Report, Commons, 14/2/00; col. 709.]
	That is what is wrong with the whole clause. However, it would be equally wrong if the electoral commission were to fund bodies which were to take part in partisan arguments and discussions. That would be a great pity.
	The only suggestion which Mr Mike O'Brien could make as to a body which might be given money by the electoral commission was a body called the Citizenship Foundation. I am not sure whether that body is entirely neutral. I believe that it campaigns on certain aspects that are not universally agreed within this country. It is perfectly free to do so; I do not complain of that. However, it should not be funded by an electoral commission, which is supposed to be the referee.
	Mr Mike O'Brien made that statement on 14th February. In all the many months since then, I wonder whether any other example has occurred to Ministers of bodies which might be funded by the electoral commission under subsection (4)(b). Frankly, if the Government cannot come up with better answers, I suggest that we remove subsection 4(b). In fact, I suggest that we remove the whole of this clause, thus simplifying the Bill. That would make things a good deal easier and would free the electoral commission of the suspicion that the Government may want to use it in future as a vehicle for putting across propaganda, either about European institutions or--in my opinion, this is even worse--about changing electoral systems. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 42A. I am also responsible for Amendment No. 44. My amendment is designed to address two problems with the existing wording of subsection (1) of this clause. Both concern the scope of the subsection. The problems are addressed in other amendments grouped with this one. However, my amendment seeks to encompass them in what is, in effect, a redrafting of the subsection. It also has the effect of rendering unnecessary subsection (2).
	The first problem concerns the use of the word "pending" in paragraph (a). My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is concerned that this could lead to ambiguity and would allow the commission to promote the case for electoral systems that have not yet been introduced, and may never come into force. I appreciate that subsection (2) seeks to clarify the term. However, it does not necessarily resolve the ambiguity. As I read subsection (2), Parliament could approve a new electoral system for use in a future election and authorise the Secretary of State to give effect to it by order. The system would not be in force and may never be in force, but once the measure was enacted it would be pending.
	I can see the case for the electoral commission having the responsibility for giving advice on how a new system works once it has been approved by Parliament. My amendment makes it clear that that responsibility will only apply once a new system has been approved and will be used at the next national or local election. The amendment thus imposes a clear limit. It is also practical, as the obvious time to give information to voters is shortly before they are to use a new system. I believe that my amendment meets the objection of my noble friend, while allowing the commission to provide advice on a system that is not current.
	The second problem addressed by the amendment is the scope of paragraphs (b) and (c). My noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Astor seek to delete paragraph (c). As we have heard, they believe that it is not the job of the electoral commission to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union. I agree. However, I believe that the same argument also applies to paragraph (b).
	The electoral commission is a body set up to fulfil certain functions in respect of elections, referendums and the registration of political parties. The general functions are embodied in Clause 4. The areas of competence of the commission are clear. By "competence", I refer to its expertise. The commission is to be given the personnel and resources to carry out those general functions as embodied in Clause 4. The competence of the commission--I remind the Committee that it is called an "electoral commission"--does not extend to current systems of government in the United Kingdom, nor to institutions of the European Union.
	Those who specialise in the politics and government of a particular country or a particular region are likely to know something about the electoral system or systems within that country. But those who specialise in electoral methods or other particular aspects of a political system are not necessarily experts on the political systems that employ those electoral methods. Promoting awareness of systems of government is not some incidental task that can be fulfilled by a body which specialises in elections and referendums. That is the key point. It is a major undertaking in its own right.
	I realise that under subsection (4), to which my noble friend referred, the commission may make grants to other persons or bodies for the purpose of enabling them to carry out those functions. But that falls foul of two objections. The first is that the commission itself is not necessarily qualified in terms of its own knowledge to decide what persons or bodies are best qualified to carry out such tasks. The second is that it is not clear that the power itself falls within the scope of the Long Title.
	I touched upon the problem of Clause 12 in relation to the Long Title at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, did not respond in replying to the debate but, with his usual courtesy, he wrote to me afterwards. The noble Lord pointed out that the Long Title refers to an "Electoral Commission" and that Part I sets out the commission's general functions. He went on to say,
	"In undertaking programmes to promote greater participation in the democratic process, including by voting at elections, the Commission must be free to explain not just how we vote, but also the role and relevance of the bodies that we elect".
	The general functions of the commission listed in Clause 4 relate clearly to the other matters embodied in the Long Title. The functions listed in Clause 12(1)(b) and (c) do not. Paragraph (a) can begin to fall within the Long Title in that it can be related to election campaigns. In his letter, the Minister confers on the commission a responsibility that is not embodied in the Bill. Under that clause the commission is required to promote public awareness of electoral systems and systems of government. That may or may not produce,
	"greater participation in the democratic process".
	That suggests to me some confusion as to what is intended by the clause. It appears to confer on the commission a responsibility which takes it beyond that which is required for fulfilling the functions adumbrated in Clause 4 and beyond that encompassed by the Long Title of the Bill. I repeat: the functions embodied in subsection (1)(b) and (c) are not incidental to the fulfilment of the commission's other functions. There is nothing in the Bill that imposes upon the commission the responsibility to encourage greater participation in the electoral process.
	I appreciate, of course, that the Long Title can be changed. I do not want the title to be changed. I want this clause to be amended to ensure that the commission sticks to those matters on which it has expertise.

Lord Shore of Stepney: I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as opposed to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I believe that Amendment No. 42A meets the situation which the Government have in mind. That situation is this: the Government produced such massive changes in the electoral systems in Scotland, Wales and Greater London that half the electorate did not understand what they were all about. Clearly, there was a need for some education in electoral systems, particularly those that had been newly introduced, but only after they had been placed on the statute book, not just generally floated about--I am sure my noble friends did not have that in mind. So I fully understand the need to explain the ever more complicated systems of election on which we are embarked.
	I should perhaps declare that I am a member of the Neill committee and therefore I have some connection with the proposals in the report. I apologise to the Committee for not immediately revealing that highly significant fact. But that leads me on to my next point. Promoting political awareness in general is a rather dangerous task to give to an electoral commission and I do not believe we had that in mind either one way or the other. In fact it did not even occur to us when we were considering the functions of the electoral commission when we framed our report. However, whether or not the Government are right in giving the commission the task of promoting political awareness, the crucial question is: awareness of what?
	Promoting awareness of election systems--that is, the technicalities of elections--does not seem to me a great offence. I would have no difficulty with that, although I am not a partisan of it. Where I strongly draw the line is in promoting awareness of,
	"the institutions of the European Union",
	as set out in Clause 12(1)(c). As the Committee will be aware, paragraphs (a) and (b) relate to electoral systems in the United Kingdom and currents systems of local government. But in paragraph (c) we suddenly leap into,
	"the institutions of the European Union".
	If I felt for a moment that we had an electoral commission that would tell the truth about European institutions and how they impinge upon the farcical element of democracy as represented in the European Parliament; if I felt that that could be made plain by the electoral commission, I would feel reasonably satisfied. But we are clearly on controversial ground in that regard and it would be very foolish of the Government to try to put that into the hands of an "independent" body. Are any of us really independent on this issue? If paragraph (c) is to be taken literally, the commission must tell the truth, not only about election to the European Parliament--we cannot even vote for a person of our choice; we have to vote for a list--but also about the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the Council of Ministers. Is it wise to hand over that responsibility to the election commission? I doubt it and I urge my noble friends to rethink our position on this matter.

Baroness Fookes: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 47 which stands in my name. It deals precisely with the points made by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. The Bill states:
	"The commission shall promote public awareness of ... the institutions of the European Union".
	I have several objections to that and suggest a modest amendment. Instead of "institutions", the provision should read, "the current electoral systems of the European Union". That at least brings it back to the electoral system.
	I have an objection on a point of principle in relation to the Long Title of the Bill, mentioned in another context by my noble friend. I do not see how this paragraph can possibly be considered as part of the Long Title. The Long Title talks precisely about the electoral commission and every other part of it relates to electoral systems. The paragraph refers to,
	"the institutions of the European Union".
	That has nothing whatever to do with electoral systems. I believe therefore that this paragraph should not be part of the Bill on the ground that it is not within the Long Title.
	But even if that were not so, it is not wise to encumber the new commission, which will have a large number of duties to perform, with another vague task in promoting public awareness. It has much else to do that is more important. This is just a little bit of frippery which we can well do without.
	I feel strongly that the Bill would be far bettter without the entire clause. But if the Government cannot be persuaded to adopt that course, at least Amendment No. 47 would make it more relevant.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: As might be expected, I cannot support any of the amendments before us and I believe that Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill. It would be remiss of the Government not to take the opportunity of using the electoral commission to provide voter education, which is so greatly needed. A number of noble Lords have referred to the need for that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that he did not believe that that was what the commission was about. I first advocated the step to the electoral commission in 1991: I suggested that part of its brief should be voter education. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to know that if one waits, things finally happen. I believe that the Government's proposal is right and that we would be wrong not to take the opportunity to promote public awareness of elections and electoral systems.
	As regards electoral systems, I understand "pending" to relate to those systems which have already been agreed by government and will be put into place. During debates on the Scotland, Wales and London Bills we heard many complaints from the Opposition that educating people about the various systems was not being addressed. We now have an opportunity to do so.
	As regards what might happen if we change the electoral system for Westminster, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, did not suggest an AV system but an AV-plus system. Irrespective of my personal views on the need for electoral reform, I hope that the commission will be 100 per cent impartial. It would be wrong for it to take a side on the kind of system which should or should not be available. It might disagree with what I want but I would not be happy about partiality. We have discussed the membership of the commission at length and I believe that as a result of its definition it is certain to be impartial in that respect.
	The argument applies equally to Europe. It would not be right for the commission to become involved in political matters relating to Europe. The suggestion that it might become involved in the argument about the euro is a red herring. However, as we are in Europe it should, in a factual sense, explain to people the European institutions and the ways in which the British Government work with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, suggested that that would be difficult and that it could be done only if the commission told the truth. It can tell the truth if it is factual and unbiased. That is what citizenship education in schools is all about. It explains the way in which we are governed and the role of our politicians in an unbiased way. I would have thought that the same could apply in Europe.
	We need to be told because people do not understand about the institutions of Europe. They do not know the difference between the Commission and the Parliament. They do not understand the role of the Human Rights Commission or Court. If we are asking people to vote in an election which will have consequences for those bodies, it is only right that we ensure they understand what they are voting for.
	Finally, I turn to grants. We are giving the electoral commission many serious responsibilities and it could take on the responsibility of knowing to which organisations it should give grants. That would maintain its impartiality and ensure the impartiality of the organisations it is assisting. That is crucial in ensuring that people have a greater awareness. An opinion poll published last year or the year before identified how few people knew the meaning of "first past the post". They know what to do when they get into a polling station but they do not have a clue why they are doing it or what the outcome will be.

The Earl of Onslow: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is not this the most appalling denigration of the British people? They knew perfectly well what they were doing when they kicked the Tories out at the last election and I may even be right in saying that they were right. But to say that they go in, put a cross on the paper but do not have a clue what they are doing is de haut en bas like an 18th century duchess talking around a servant girl.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I want to say to the noble Earl only that I would never be a duchess. The important point is that the opinion poll clearly showed that people know what to do when they go into polling stations--they know where to put a cross--but they do not know the mechanics of why they are doing it because they do not understand. The evidence is not mine; the position has been made clear. If the noble Earl would care to look at Hansard--I cannot quote chapter and verse but I shall try to find it--he will see that the issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, during debates on the different electoral systems. I do not remember whether it was during debates on the Scotland, Wales or London Bill but during one of them he said that people do not even understand "first past the post". It is not what I am saying but in the general sense.

The Earl of Onslow: With great respect, the fact that my noble friend Lord Mackay said it adds no force to the argument at all. It is denigrating to pretend that the people do not understand how to vote for their lords and masters.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: That is not what I am saying. I am sorry that the noble Earl seems determined to misunderstand what I am saying. I repeat that in a general sense it is crucial that people understand the mechanics.

Lord Norton of Louth: I disagree with the premise of the argument which the noble Baroness advances, but that is not the issue. I do not disagree that there is a need for greater education when the electoral system is introduced, nor do I disagree that the commission should be impartial. The question is whether it is the appropriate body to undertake such tasks. It is not a question of impartiality or education; it is a question of whether it has the expertise to undertake the task or whether we should give it to others.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, raised that point. We are giving the commission an enormous amount of responsibility and we expect it to have a great deal of expertise on how political parties and elections are run. Therefore, I do not believe that it is beyond the bounds of possibility that it could explain the electoral systems to the electorate. I also believe that it should take over the job currently undertaken by the Home Office to inform the electorate how to register and to obtain postal votes. That would be a significant role for the commission and is part of voter education. I hope that that answers the point.

Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may respond by saying that it does not. Those matters fall within the election process and are not at issue. No one has challenged the provisions of paragraph (a); paragraphs (b) and (c) raise the problem which takes us beyond the issue she has identified.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am sorry, but I cannot believe that how one votes is nothing to do with the electoral process. Of course it is. I believe that it is a continuation of exactly that role. I hope that the Committee will reject all these amendments and will allow Clause 12 to stand part of the Bill.

Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps I may first address myself to the question of the Long Title. We are fortunate in the services provided so ably to us by the Clerks when we table amendments to legislation in your Lordships' House. They adjudicate as a matter of course on whether those amendments are within the Long Title of the Bill.
	My memory of my time as a business manager for the previous government leads me to remember that officials within the government machine sometimes adjudicated on difficult questions of whether the original drafting of a Bill and particular clauses within it lie within its Long Title. I remember long, and sometimes vigorous, discussions on those points not only between Ministers and officials but between officials themselves.
	There is considerable doubt whether Clause 12 comes within the Long Title of the Bill. As a non-lawyer reading the various phrases of the Long Title beginning with the words "to make provision about", there is perhaps even greater confusion here than has been so clearly identified by my noble friend Lord Norton; namely, whether subsections (1)(b) and (c) and (4) "make provision" or introduce something completely new into the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can assist the Committee when he comes to reply.
	My collective memory, which is purely anecdotal and perhaps needs to be confirmed by the Minister when he comes to reply, is that very often when there was confusion within government about whether certain clauses came within the Long Title of a Bill Clerks of both Houses would be asked, sometimes informally, for their opinion. Did that happen when the Government gave no doubt detailed consideration to the question whether to include Clause 12? If so, although the Minister will not be able to say precisely what advice was given, can he tell the Committee why he believes that it comes within the Long Title? Since this is questioned by so many experienced former Ministers and people who occupied offices in another place, for example my noble friend Lady Fookes, should we not take expert advice on the matter?
	This is a matter of considerable importance for a number of reasons, in particular the future reputation and standing of the commission. I see the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his place. I hope that he is the first to recognise that if the commission is to be set up it is essential that it should be generally regarded with respect and its impartiality should be beyond question. Otherwise, its establishment will do very little good and it will be dragged into the political arena, particularly in areas of enormous political controversy. I refer not only to electoral systems but, thanks to Clause 12--if it is accepted in all its current glory--matters which are of enormous importance to the future of our country and excite political controversy, whether it is our continued membership of the European Union or the nature of our future association with the EU. If the commission's impartiality is put at risk by asking it to do things that go beyond its clear remit of adjudication, the Government will not do either themselves or the institutions of this country a favour by asking the Committee to approve Clause 12.
	I have nothing to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Norton about subsection (1)(a). His amendment encapsulates something which I am happy to accept. I hope that the Government will also accept it. It is much clearer and simpler than Clause 12(2), which perhaps attempts to do the same kind of job.
	It is important to illustrate why I believe the function of propaganda is so insidious and the Government have been seduced by it. I am about to say something which noble Lords on the other side of the Committee may regard as a little tendentious, but I do so all the same. The Government suffer from what I regard--perhaps not in an entirely complimentary fashion--as the "BBC syndrome". Some things are so blindingly obvious to metropolitan man and woman that the Government cannot conceive that some may fundamentally disagree with their views. Therefore, in the generosity of their hearts, and because of their natural pedagogical tendencies, they are only too delighted to educate us--that is an expression which they constantly use--as to the self-evident rightness of everything in which they believe. They maintain that stance even if it is patently obvious that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country do not agree with them. When the overwhelming majority do not agree with them they ignore that fact. Although they are paid-up, sincere believers in our system of parliamentary democracy, nevertheless they characterise those who do not agree with them as extremists, even though they may form part of the majority.
	That is a mindset from which the Government unquestionably benefit; it gives them enormous self-confidence and certainty. It never occurs to them that they might just be wrong. In that they share the kind of prejudice which has brought the BBC into such disrepute. That is a clear warning as to why we should not drag the commission down the same road by agreeing Clause 12. It is a great shame that they have so needlessly complicated the electoral arrangements that people need to be educated as to how they work.
	I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for whom I have the greatest affection and respect, ever stood for election in another place; she probably did. My experience during the relatively short period--two Parliaments--in which I had the privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for the constituency of South Dorset (as it was then) was very different from that of the noble Baroness. My constituents were extraordinarily clear about how the system worked because, after all, it was relatively simple. They knew that if they gave me more votes than anybody else I would win; if not, I would lose. It was patently obvious that they did not need any education on that point.
	Infinitely more complex and different systems have been introduced for the Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the citizens of London. That is a highly sophisticated body of people who no doubt understand it better than I do. Nevertheless, I can understand that they need to be educated. I regret that those systems have been introduced, but for the moment I must accept that they are in place. Therefore, since the Government have got themselves into a mess there is some sense at least in trying to explain to the electorate the complications of the system.
	But if the Government want Clause 12 they would be extremely wise to drop paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) and, instead of subsection (2), adopt Amendment No. 42A in the name of my noble friend. They should drop subsection (4) and any idea that the body should be financiers of any other organisation that it might commission to carry out the education function, because if it made grants to one rather than another it would be making a judgment about that organisation and so would compromise its independence.
	I hope that the Minister will take advice by consulting through his colleagues the Clerks of both Houses on whether the clause is within the Long Title; and if it is, explain to us why. I hope that he will also listen to the advice he has received about the contents of the clause. The majority of the clause is not only unnecessary but is positively prejudicial to the good standing of the commission before it is even launched.

Lord Neill of Bladen: I had not intended to speak this afternoon. I should like to make it clear that as the chairman of the committee which produced the report, it did not seem appropriate for me to comment on whether the Bill has the matter right or wrong. I do not want to play that part. But I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to be inviting me to speak about the role given to the electoral commission.
	I should disclose one other interest. The noble Viscount referred to the constituents of South Dorset in flattering terms as being a group of people who realised that the candidate with the largest number of votes was likely to be elected to the House of Commons. I was one of his constituents.
	I am expressing my own personal view about what Clause 12 purports to do. My opinion is that it is a wholly inappropriate role to give to the electoral commission as we conceived it. I cannot see how it could carry out the duties conscientiously under Clause 12 without being drawn into political controversy. How does one explain the electoral systems of this country in a wholly neutral way? If one thinks of a clause which says that people can be employed to run programmes, who does one invite to run such a programme? Obviously the natural place to go would be to the politics departments in universities. Let us imagine a professor of politics having to give a completely neutral lecture about the electoral system; any professor who accepts the burden of neutrality should not be in his job at all. He should have a clear view.
	Could the electoral commission teach one how to achieve tactical voting? Could it do that and point out in which constituency that would be most likely to be successful? One has to think for only about two seconds about the role given to the commission to see that it is one which would get in the way of the other very serious obligations it has under other parts of the Bill. My opinion having been invited, I have expressed it. I regret that I shall not be able to stay because I have a commitment elsewhere. I hope that that has been of some assistance.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said. He expressed an opinion based on the information given to his committee. But I draw the line when it comes to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. For him to say that he was not partial is really straining the imagination.

Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would be horrified if the noble Lord went away from the debate thinking I was impartial. I am very much the reverse.

Lord Clinton-Davis: That is what I thought. That is what I am complaining about. Affectionately though I look at the noble Viscount, his knowledge of this particular issue baffles me. I refer to Clause 12(1)(c). I served on the European Commission for four years. It should have been longer. The British public simply do not know enough about the value of the work of the individual organisations which make up the European Union. I do not see why the commission should not be able to press these issues in a perfectly straightforward way. It does not have to be biased. It does not have to adopt a position where it favours the Commission or does not favour the Commission or the other organisations which make up the European Union. Textbooks have been written about the issue which do not take up a "for" or "against" position.
	Briefings are written in English or German or whatever. The English edition is in pink. Everyone looks at them very carefully, particularly before a Commission meeting, not with a view to getting a distorted view of the issue but with a view to getting a balanced view of the position.
	With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 12(1), I do not see why the commission has to be prejudiced one way or the other. I adopt the view that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, adopted when describing that. Whatever view one takes with regard to Clause 12(1)(c) on the institutions of the European Union--I know my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney takes a particular view--it is irrelevant as far as concerns the job of the commission. Clause 12 states that the commission shall promote public awareness of the different institutions. So it should.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is passionately enthusiastic that people should be educated about the system. I agree with her with regard to the new systems, which are very complicated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has now left, but I think he has a house in Scotland. I am not sure whether he was there at the time of the Scots referendum but he will perhaps be more aware than some of us of what happened in Scotland. Any of us who experienced the Scots referendum knows that once the voting system gets into an election, it becomes a huge electoral issue. The way people learned how the system worked during the Scottish referendum depended very much on who was explaining it to them. The noble Baroness will understand that as a political person. Once it is in the system, it is a very political matter indeed.
	I do not know whether in schools in her part of the country the discussion of electoral systems or indeed political systems becomes politicised. But certainly where I live, which is in Nationalist country, it is very difficult for a teacher to tackle the subject without politics coming into the matter. I do not blame teachers at all. I have taken part in this exercise myself and know how difficult it is. The discussions become politicised.
	The noble Lord, Lord Neill, made a powerful statement that he feels that this is an inappropriate role for the commission. I am sure the Government will pay attention to that. They certainly should. It was courageous of him and he may be criticised for making it. I think that he was right to do so, and I am sure that the Government will pay attention.
	I should like to make one point. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that she assumed that pending electoral systems were those which had been agreed by the Government. I imagine that she meant to say "agreed by Parliament". It is too soon for the matter to come into the public domain and be discussed by the commission.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: The noble Baroness is correct. The word should have been "Parliament".

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On that point, I would suggest to the Committee that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has the position right in Amendment No. 42A, which seeks to insert the words,
	"any electoral system that has been authorised by enactment, but is not yet in force, for use at the next national or local election".
	It must be something that has not only been approved by Parliament but has been enacted, so that it is the system that people will use. To teach them about that is very different from teaching them about systems which people are advocating and discussing and which may or may not be accepted. That is a political matter.
	If the Government are to accept an amendment, it should be Amendment No. 42A. But, having heard my noble friends Lord Cranborne and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Neill, how much better it would be to leave the clause out of the Bill and to arrange for the education of people in these matters to be done by another body.

Lord Warner: It seems to me that the case has been rather strongly made in contributions from the opposite side of the Committee for Clause 12(1) and (2) to remain as presently drafted. The cat was slightly let out of the bag when the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that people knew how to vote for their lords and masters. That was a quite revealing phrase about elections in this country.

The Earl of Onslow: When I said "our lords and masters", I meant our Government. Those are what they are; that is what we choose them to be; and that is what we are quite grown up enough to do. That is why I am not patronising the electorate and some noble Lords opposite are.

Lord Warner: If the noble Earl reads Hansard, he will see that he was talking about electing our lords and masters. That is the phrase he used. If he reads Hansard, he will see that that is what he was saying elections are all about. I shall not pursue the point. I have registered it already.
	Perhaps I may refer to some of the points made by noble Lords opposite. They reveal some of the worst aspects of what I would call the political closed shop. The cat was let out of the bag by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when he referred to things being dragged down into the political arena. That chimes with much of the public concern about politics and political institutions. I should have thought that Clause 12 as presently drafted would do a good deal to improve people's understanding and recognition of the worth of the public institutions for which they are voting. If they received that information from an independent body rather than from the political classes, they might possibly have a higher regard for some of those institutions and some of the people who work in them.
	It would be for the benefit of the status and standing of politics and of the institutions that are involved in politics if some of the passing on of information was taken out of the political arena and given to an independent body, which could then exercise its judgment about how to put that information in the public arena. That would be a sensible way to proceed. I fully support the Government in standing firm on Clause 12(1) and (2) as presently drafted.

Viscount Cranborne: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will agree that I was not against an information function. I was against confusing it with the independent functions of the commission. On his more general point, does he agree that there is probably a deep and unbridgeable divide between his position and mine? I happen to believe that the electorate is best qualified to judge; he believes that a platonic class of guardians should judge rather than the electorate.

Lord Warner: I believe that the electorate are able to judge which party or candidate to choose in any election. I also believe that the electorate might appreciate information about the institutions and electoral systems through which they are voting from an independent source rather than from the political classes, whom they might possibly see as having an axe to grind when putting that information in the public arena.

Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble Lord finally sits down, perhaps I may say that I have been a long-standing advocate of political education. I believe that it can be delivered neutrally; and contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Neill, was saying, I believe that it could be provided neutrally by politics professors. I declare an interest as a politics professor. If they were wearing their academic caps, it could be done well. There are means of doing it. We are not arguing about whether there should be education; we are arguing about the appropriate body to deliver it. There are mechanisms for doing it independently of the parties. The noble Lord missed the basic point. He is arguing that there should be education. I am certainly not arguing against that. I am saying that, because of the way the electoral commission is composed, it does not have the expertise to carry out that task.

Lord Warner: I disagree with the noble Lord.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am inclined to support the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He rightly expressed deep concern that the electoral commission might at some point take it upon itself to take initiatives contrary to the will of Parliament and outwith its remit. I know that Northern Ireland is a very tiresome place but on this occasion I think that we can be of some assistance. I shall give two examples.
	In Northern Ireland we have had for a long time a neutral animal--he is supposed to be neutral--in the name of the chief electoral officer. A former occupant of that office once bullied a Minister into attempting to deny to the people of Northern Ireland holiday votes, which had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the Representation of the People Act. The Act embraced Northern Ireland but was not solely about Northern Ireland. The Minister and the chief electoral officer got together and threatened resignation if their views were rejected. It fell to me, with some considerable assistance from the Home Secretary of the day, to ensure that they were defeated in their conspiracy. There we had a case of a senior, and ostensibly neutral, electoral officer--an appointed officer--not very different in kind from what is being proposed for the commission; his role should have been restricted to implementing the law made by Parliament and nothing else, but he took it upon himself to act contrary to what he knew to be the view of the government and Parliament of the day.
	I have a second example. On another occasion the chief electoral officer, when conducting a proportional representation election, advised electors publicly, by taking space in the newspapers at public expense, to vote down the ballot paper. "Don't stop", he said, "You must go right down it". His objective was to ensure that the very small parties at the bottom of the ballot paper would benefit from transferred votes as candidates were either elected earlier or their votes became valid at some later stage. It was a pure political initiative on his part without approval from or reference to Parliament or the government of the day.
	On the question of education, I share the view that it is not the business of the commission to educate people, in particular about the institutions of the European Union. I fear that it would be impossible to secure an impartial opinion on all the complexities of the various institutions within the European Union.
	Finally, I think that such a commission would be even more vulnerable to foreign interference than was the old system of the Speaker's Conference which designed boundaries. Again, the experience of Northern Ireland can come to the aid of noble Lords. The situation is plain. The last boundary commission was forced by a foreign European government--they even boasted about it--to go back to the drawing board. The first report of the Speaker's Conference on constituencies in Northern Ireland, reporting at the same time as on the remainder the United Kingdom, did not suit the Irish Government.
	The Irish Government made no secret of the fact that they had ordered Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the boundary commission, technically presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons, designed a different number and pattern of constituencies. That was done and was then implemented by the United Kingdom Parliament. On that occasion, the triumph of foreign interference was that a very hardworking, moderate and constructive SDLP Member of another place, Dr. Joe Hendron, was ousted by one not so constructive politician in the shape of Mr Gerry Adams from the constituency of West Belfast. That happened because the Irish Government blundered and did not know what they were doing. They transferred into Joe Hendron's constituency a huge slab of IRA supporters, not only individual voters, but also access to their printing presses which were used to produce forgeries of the identity cards needed to vote in Northern Ireland.
	I am afraid that the new commission would be even less likely to stand up to pressures from one foreign government, still less could it resist the pressures described by the noble Lord, Lord Shore; namely, from a whole gaggle of European nations, should they decide to get together. For that reason, I believe that Clause 12 is fairly dangerous.

Lord McNally: This has been an interesting debate which has produced some recognisable faultlines. I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. Clearly, some glamour still attaches to the role of Member of Parliament because he was flattered by the fact that his former Member of Parliament praised the judgment of his constituents and then accepted his invitation to intervene in our debate.
	Perhaps I may say that I agree with parts of the Neill report and, as I made clear at Second Reading, I disagree with other parts. It is important, when discussing the Bill, to remember that the Neill report is not carved in tablets of stone and that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, most certainly is not Moses. I thought that his intervention was ill judged, in particular since he has now departed. We are now left with a dilemma. Will we work through the remainder of the Bill on the assumption that the noble Lord's silence denotes approval, or will he pay us visits from time to time to pronounce on other aspects?
	As I said, I think that the Neill report is a good and solid bit of work done by good and solid citizens, but Parliament should not be overawed by it; it should take it for what it is--a good contribution to our debate.
	It is certainly a better contribution than we have heard from some of the Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, seemed to rush away from any proposal about information like Dracula from garlic--although I would concede that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that he was in favour of information. That, of course, is what we have been talking about today. We have not been discussing propaganda, but rather information and education.
	One of the faultlines that has revealed itself in this debate is the complacency demonstrated on this side of the Committee about how our political institutions are working at the moment. It is worth remembering that our debate--which has embraced many different facets and involved a large number of pieces of legislation--was not started by the noble Lord, Lord Neill. It arose out of a growing concern among politicians of all parties at the low esteem into which politics, politicians and our political institutions were falling. What is being proposed may or may not provide the answer to those problems, but to assume that what we have is the best of all possible worlds would be to demonstrate complacency of the most dangerous kind. We need to encourage more people to become involved in the political process and I believe that that requires education to be delivered in its broadest sense.
	In some ways it is almost pathetic to observe that soon we shall be celebrating 30 years' membership of the European Union. Despite that, it is generally accepted that there is widespread ignorance as regards its workings and operations. I believe that that is the case because people generally feel that the subject is so politically charged that it is best simply to avoid giving out proper information.
	I also think that one of the reasons why governments all too frequently reach for referenda is a failure of confidence by Parliament and parliamentarians themselves. I am still sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the great issues of the day should be settled in Parliament by the elected representatives of the people rather than by ducking such issues and shuffling them off to be decided by referenda. But perhaps that pass was lost a long time ago. Given that, let us at least put in place a framework in which people can hold informed discussions and then make informed decisions.
	I am sorry to see that, in the course of the broader debate about the need for constitutional reform, we still witness what I shall call the "short-term slide-rule approach". Every idea put forward is carefully measured to calculate the short-term political interest of one party or another. If this Bill moves forward, I hope that this House in particular will examine some of the proposals in the broader context of how we can make our democracy more effective and how we can engage more fully and better inform our people in the process.
	I agree that Clause 12 should be retained. Perhaps it would have been better, as an alternative, to establish two commissions--although I suspect that the same complaints would have been made about commission B as those that have been made today about the commission as a whole. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, when she stated that the experience that the commission will gain from one side of its operations will prove very useful when carrying out its duties under Clause 12.
	I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, believes that it is possible to give unbiased information. Teachers do it all the time. I believe that it would be wrong to decide that the commission could not gain the expertise so to do. Broadly, we support the retention of Clause 12, not for any short-term party advantage, but because we believe that it will underpin the broader interests of our democracy and the fuller interests of what the Bill as a whole is trying to do.

Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble Lord sits down, although I do not dissent from what he said about teaching, I do not think that he has made a case as to why the electoral commission should be the body to undertake that task. The noble Lord has conceded that teachers quite often can impart information impartially. They can do that because they are trained as teachers of politics. It is when people who are not trained try to do so that the problems arise. I cannot see how the electoral commission will comprise people with that degree of expertise; they will not be trained to impart that kind of information.

Lord McNally: I said that teachers can do it. I do not believe that teachers exclusively can do it. The commission will gather a body of expertise and may well bring in expert information. If, for example, we gave the task to the Central Office of Information, some on the Conservative Benches would say, "There is a department of government carrying out government propaganda". The noble Lord says, "Not the commission", but I suspect that some of the complaints against the idea of information and education would be levelled against whichever body was chosen to carry out the task.

Lord Renton: The two points that I wish to make override each of these amendments. The first point is this. The commission is to consist of not less than five and not more than nine members. Do the Government contemplate that decisions must always be unanimous? They may very well not be. If decisions are not unanimous, and if the commission is not equally divided, will the majority view always prevail? If that happens, those members who do not agree with the majority will find themselves obliged to support matters of public education with which they do not agree. That seems to be an unfortunate--indeed, an impossible--constitutional position.
	My second point--I can put it quite briefly--is this. We are told in subsection (6)--this overrides all the previous parts of Clause 12 and the amendments we have discussed--that the total expenditure,
	"shall not exceed such sum as is for the time being specified for the purposes of this subsection"--
	that means even Clause 12--
	"by an order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury".
	The commission could be involved in vast expenditure in carrying out this huge range of public education. If the Treasury decides that it must not have the money, it will not be able to fulfil its functions. But if the commission is told, in effect, that it can have as much money as it wants, we shall have to consider, as will Members of another place, whether that is a justifiable use of public expenditure.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Usually the speaking notes on these matters suggest that one should thank the Committee for an interesting and wide-ranging debate. There is always a column on the prepared grid sheet which contains the word "risk". This one contains the words "possibly contentious". We have had the full range in this afternoon's debate.
	I have found the debate fascinating. It has made me think back to my days at secondary school, when I was in the sixth form and we were introduced to something on the timetable called "civics". I remember the very first question in our very first lesson on civics. A lad at the back put his hand in the air and asked the teacher, "What does it mean?" I thought that said it all.
	It also says a lot about our debate today. It strikes me that there is an element of fear in some of the contributions that have been made--fear that someone may begin to understand and comprehend the depths of the various political systems, the way in which we elect governments, the reasons we elect governments, the relationship between different parts of government, governments abroad, how we relate to the European Community and so on.
	Clause 12 is a valuable clause. It begins to set out how we may take some important, tentative steps towards improving the quality of voter education. The commission will have a vitally important role to play in promoting a greater sense of citizenship and in encouraging greater levels of participation in the democratic process. In view of some of the turn-outs for local elections and European elections over the past few years, the argument is well made for an electoral commission which has, as a small part of its function, the role of promoting greater knowledge and understanding of our political institutions and the way in which governance works.
	The electoral commission's work in this area will subsume the campaigns presently run annually by the Home Office in connection with the registration of electors and the campaigns conducted at the time of a parliamentary election to remind people of the timetable and procedure for applying for an absent vote. Additionally, the commission will take on responsibility for any ad hoc campaign needed to explain new voting systems--for example, the one mounted in respect of the elections to the Greater London Authority. The setting up of the electoral commission offers an opportunity to transfer responsibility for such campaigns to an independent body which is free from any suspicion of political partisanship.
	Earlier in the mists of the debate surrounding this piece of legislation, pleas were made that it might be right and appropriate to have political figures as members of the electoral commission. We have stood resolutely steadfast against that. We believe that it has to be a rigorous, robust and independent electoral commission. I hope that that fact will begin to have some bearing on the suspicions that some Members of the Committee have expressed today. I believe that there is an important educational role for a robust and independent electoral commission.
	It will not be for the commission to promote alternative electoral systems or alternative systems for local, regional or national government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred. It is clearly right that the commission should not distribute even purportedly factual literature about systems of voting or government which have not been adopted in this country. This starts to get to the root of some of the awkward questions that have been asked.
	But that is already the effect of this clause as it stands. Subsection (1) refers to current and pending systems of voting and government. Subsection (2) makes it clear that "pending" simply means arrangements which are on the statute book or included in subordinate legislation but have yet to come into force. It means no more than that.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We have more than two systems of election in this country, but perhaps I may refer to only two. We have a first-past-the-post system for Westminster and a list system for the Scottish Parliament. Will the electoral commission be able to educate the public outwith Scotland on the merits of the list system in order perhaps to soften them up for a change in the electoral system at Westminster?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the electoral commission would tread very carefully in that territory. It would reflect that it should be addressing only the education of the section of the community where that piece of legislation applied. I take the narrower view which lies behind the meaning of "pending" in this legislation.
	As I said, "pending" means arrangements which are on the statute book or included in subordinate legislation but have yet to come into force. A case in point might be the new arrangements for London government. The Greater London Authority Act received Royal Assent in November 1999. Had the electoral commission been in existence at that time, it would have been entirely appropriate for it to have initiated a campaign after November 1999 to explain the purpose of the authority and the system for the election of the mayor and Assembly.

Lord McNally: I hope that the Minister will not get himself talked too much into a corner by the timidity of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. How London is governing itself and how the system is working may well be of wider interest to people in other parts of the country. An information and education campaign about how the Scottish system or the London system is working would be of general interest. This is not creating new systems of government; that is for Parliament to do. Ministers should resist the crouched fear that a more informed electorate will somehow escape their grasp.

The Earl of Onslow: It is not a question of fear of the electorate: on this side of the Committee we have nothing to fear from the electorate. Quite rightly, they booted us out last time. They are intelligent enough to know it. They may even put us in next time, but that is a bit more "iffy". I have no fear of the people; I have no fear of their not making the right choice. The cringing is on the other side of the Chamber: "They're not well enough educated. They don't know. They can't choose their leaders". They have not made a mistake since 1945.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am enjoying the good-natured banter. Long may it continue.
	This matter is important. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we should not be too narrow in our view of these matters, but the commission clearly has to work within the powers as they are set out.
	I am not, therefore, clear about the concerns that lie behind Amendments Nos. 42, 45 and 48. If Parliament has legislated for new electoral arrangements or if subordinate legislation has been made for such arrangements but commencement is delayed to just before the start of the election campaign, it seems perfectly reasonable that the electoral commission should nevertheless act to promote public understanding of how those arrangements will work.
	Turning to Amendments Nos. 42A, 44, 46 and 47, the Government consider it an essential part of the commission's voter education function that it should be empowered not only to promote understanding of the mechanics of the electoral systems used in this country, but also to promote awareness of the value of voting. One of the reasons why we have poor turn-outs at elections is that people fail to see the relevance of the body being elected. People will be more inclined to vote if they believe that the body they are being asked to elect is relevant to them and will make a difference to the community in which they live. That applies as much to the European Parliament as it does to local councils. Without paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), which Amendments Nos. 42A, 44 and 46 would remove, the commission's ability to make any meaningful impact on the level of participation in our democratic institutions would be severely constrained. With turn-out at last May's local government elections falling below 30 per cent, this cannot be in the interest of any political party or of local democracy in this country. It will not be for the commission to be apologists for the policies adopted by those institutions; its role will simply be to convey, in a dispassionate and neutral manner--the manner referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth--in an educated, informed, constructive, thoughtful process, the importance of exercising the vote when those bodies are elected.
	With regard to Amendment No. 49, the purpose of subsection (4)(b) is to enable the electoral commission, in carrying out its educational role, to harness the efforts of others. We envisage that the commission might wish to make grants available to organisations such as the Citizenship Foundation, which I believe was the body referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, or possibly Operation Black Vote, which campaigns to increase registration and participation among ethnic minorities and to encourage them generally to become involved in voting. We appreciate that there may be a fear that grants may go to politically partisan organisations with their own agenda. But we think that we can rely on the commission's good sense in that regard, given its independent and robust nature.
	A number of other points were raised during the debate. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his analysis of the role and function of the electoral commission. The Government have listened by and large to the fruits of the Neill report; but we do not, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, have to buy into everything that is said in the report; nor do we always have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his analysis.
	I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I believe that the Long Title is adequate. Functions are, after all, part and parcel of the establishment of the commission, and the Long Title refers to its establishment.
	I believe that I have covered most of the substantive points raised. I hope that having heard what I have said in addressing the points raised and describing the way in which the commission will work, Members of the Committee will find themselves able to withdraw their amendments and thus enable us to have a commission that will be able to get on and do an effective job in raising the standard of knowledge about the institutions of our democracy.

Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to return to this point. I think that there is a sleight of hand in his line of argument that because this has to do with elections and, therefore, people involved in elections need to know more about government, that somehow brings this matter within the scope of the Bill. I do not accept that people who are experts on the subject of elections are necessarily competent in terms of their expertise to broaden the subject to talk about systems of government. It is a major task in its own right and it is necessary to address the very problems that the Minister concedes.
	I accept that there is a case for making sure that people are aware that greater participation in politics is necessary. However, I do not believe that this provision by itself is the way to do it. A much wider approach is needed through the education system. We are moving in that direction. That is not at issue. The issue is whether the commission will be qualified in terms of its composition, referred to by the Minister, to carry out this task and, therefore, whether it falls within the Long Title of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The commission will be interested and involved in a whole range of matters. It will examine boundary issues; the auditing and financing of parties; the registration of political parties; and the way in which donations are made and whether they are permissible; and it will carry out research in some of these matters. It seems to me that an electoral commission that is essentially interested and involved in the process of our democracy and our constitution is the institution to which we ought to turn to conduct impartial education and information campaigns. It is far better for a body that is at arm's length, which is robust and is independent of government, to carry out that important work.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for his input into this debate. He has confirmed one important point; namely, that these things can be done neutrally. I agree with him. That is what the commission should be doing and I expect that it will conduct itself in that way.

Lord Norton of Louth: I agree, and I am not disputing the "arm's length" aspect. That is not at issue so far as I am concerned. It is the fact that a body is being set up that will develop expertise in elections, political funding and referendums. However, Clause 12 seeks to take its expertise beyond that, to a much broader role which it will not be qualified to undertake.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before I sum up the debate on my amendments, perhaps I may make a point which I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer. I hear what he says about the importance of the electoral commission explaining to the public the importance of local government, and so on, so that they will turn out and vote.
	I note from subsection (3) that the electoral commission will not have that role in Scotland in relation to Scottish local government. Does that mean that the electorate does not have to be informed about Scottish local government, and that the Government are happy with the turn-out? Who will do the job of the electoral commission so far as concerns local government in Scotland? I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Clearly, he cannot, but he may be able to help me later.
	This has been an interesting debate. I am sorry that some Members of the Committee have not listened to the point being made by those of us on this side of the Chamber. None of us disagreed with the electoral commission having a role in helping to explain systems of election that were already in place legislatively. That is not our problem. Our concern is that, as matters relating to how the electorate is allowed to vote and the systems used possibly become more controversial--

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Both the noble Lord and I ought to have read subsection (3) of Clause 12, which makes it clear that this is a devolved matter. We should both have stuck more closely to the script.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be a devolved matter, but that still does not answer the question: who is going to do it? I presume that it will not be the Scottish Parliament. Who will do it if the electoral commission cannot? That is the point I am making.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Scottish Executive.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: So it is the Scottish Executive! I thought that this was to be done in a neutral, non-political way by the electoral commission. How can it be done neutrally and non-politically by the electoral commission in the rest of the United Kingdom, but be done by the Scottish Executive in Scotland? The Scottish Executive is led by a friend of mine who has many merits, but impartial is not one of the words that I would use to describe him.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: No doubt the Scottish Executive will decide and determine how to conduct its affairs impartially in this regard.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is just part of the--

Lord McNally: Has not the noble Lord noticed that the leader of the Scottish Executive is helped by a friend of mine? Therefore, the neutrality is absolutely guaranteed.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I may say so, that actually makes me even more concerned.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may further assist the noble Lord. If he turns to the Marshalled List, he will see that Amendment No. 50 provides some assistance in this respect. It says:
	"The Scottish Ministers may by order provide that, despite subsection (3), the Commission may perform the functions conferred by this section in relation to local government elections or to local government in Scotland".
	I should point out that we have already debated that amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister. That may well give me the answer that I was seeking; in other words, the Scottish Executive could actually ask the electoral commission to undertake this role. However, it seems odd that one of the results of devolution is that this Parliament sets up an electoral commission stating that it cannot deal with local government in Scotland; but, if the Scottish Executive asks the commission to do so, it can. It might be much simpler if we retained total responsibility for the matter and gave it directly to the electoral commission.
	We have had an interesting debate. I do not wish to comment on all the speeches and all the points that have been made. However, there are some points that I must cover. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that perhaps the Conservatives deserved to be kicked out at the last election. I should tell the Committee that that is not the unanimous view of everyone on this side of the Chamber. Indeed, it is well worth pointing out that, unlike the other side of the Committee, my noble friend proves that we are not pager driven; neither are we forced to be "on message"--

Lord Dubs: Does the noble Lord agree with the comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Certainly not. I thought that I was doing a splendid job.
	We have heard from many speakers, some of whom waxed very lyrical. I was most interested in the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. As a senior policy adviser to Jack Straw, I just wonder whether he had a hand in some of the original discussions on the Bill. That would, perhaps, make him a little more enthusiastic for it than might otherwise be the case. However, I shall leave the matter there.
	The most substantive comment from the Government's side came from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. There is no disagreement between us about the electoral commission performing a role to educate and inform the electorate about systems of voting. However, I am not sure that people need all that much education and help, unless we make the system enormously complicated. Like my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I think that they understand first past the post perfectly well. My proof is the way that, initially in Scotland and then in the rest of the United Kingdom, people were able to use tactical voting in first past the post to deliver the result--in my view wrongly--that they wished to see come about. I believe that the electorate do understand first past the post. It is fairly simple. Indeed, people have had a fortnight to watch it at the Olympic Games, where the winner wins, the loser loses--but the loser is not suddenly given some extra help in order to beat the winner.
	I should point out to the noble Baroness that I do not think that I would ever say that the electorate needed some education on first past the past. However, during the passage of the Scotland Bill I may have said that we would have to be sure that the electorate were informed about, and understood, the new system that would operate in Scotland. Interestingly enough, I believe that the electorate did understand perfectly well what they were about, but they did not perhaps appreciate--the political parties, understandably, acted against correct information in this respect--that they could split their vote between the first past the post constituency vote and the list system. If we look at other countries where this system has been run for longer, we can see that there is a lot more ticket splitting than we saw in Scotland. In my view, judging from my observations, one of the reasons why it did not happen in Scotland is that all the political parties in all their propaganda were looking, for perfectly understandable reasons, for a double Labour vote, a double Conservative vote, a doubt Liberal Democrat vote or a double SNP vote--

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Is that not why we need an independent voice to explain the system?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes. We do not disagree on that point. I do not think that the lack of understanding was that great, although that may have been so at the margins because of the way that the political parties put it. If an electoral commission had explained to the electorate that they could "split the ticket", so to speak, that might have led to a little more ticket splitting. I agree that one of the tasks of the electoral commission could be explaining to people--I prefer to use the word "explaining" rather than "educating"--what the electoral system is, if it has been changed. But I still do not think that that would have helped to increase the turn-out in any way for the European parliamentary elections. I believe that the electorate understood perfectly well what the system was: it was a rigged one, and they did not want too much to do with it because they like voting for individuals.
	The Minister rightly said that we can take comfort in subsection (2). Our problem is that we are concerned about the use to which the commission may be persuaded to put these powers in the future; in other words, that it may act as an explainer for a system that has not yet been introduced. Therefore, our amendments were all designed, if you like, to put a belt and braces on this particular exercise. I have to say that I prefer the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth to those that I have tabled. I believe that he makes the position absolutely crystal clear. I believe that the use of the word "pending" is sloppy; indeed, it can have two meanings. It is all very well to say, "If you read further on you will understand it", but why should we always be asked to read further on before we can understand something? If it is possible, why cannot the position be made clear when it first appears? I believe that it is perfectly possible to make it clear on the first occasion. In my view, my noble friend's amendment is perfectly clear.
	The noble Baroness, and others, were very keen to believe that the electoral commission would be impartial and that, therefore, we need not worry. No doubt we would have been told four or five weeks ago that the Lottery Commission was impartial and that we need not worry. But that is certainly not the view that a High Court judge took on the matter. I am afraid that it is not a good enough argument to say that an electoral commission will always be impartial. That may be true of one that is yet to be appointed and I could be convinced that the people on it would be impartial. However, it is not axiomatic that commissions appointed by government are impartial. Anyone who believes that should read the High Court judgment about the Lottery Commission. I am not content to rest on the view that electoral commissions will be impartial and that, therefore, we can leave such matters to their good sense.
	The second group of amendments deals with the institutions of the European Union. I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the workings and the detail of the EU are not as well understood in this country as they should be. However, I do not honestly think that it is the purpose of the electoral commission to set the matter right. Goodness alone knows, the European Commission spends enough money in this country trying to educate people about the institutions of the European Union. Indeed, it has even produced comics for youngsters which it subsequently withdraws because it is thought that they may be counter productive. I am not really surprised!
	The EU spends quite a lot of money on trying to persuade people--perhaps I should say "trying to explain to people", and not put it in a partial way--how the European Union works. I do not believe that that ought to be a role for the electoral commission. Yes, explaining how the electoral system for the European Parliament works is a role for it. We have agreed that and the amendment of my noble friend Lady Fookes would make that absolutely clear. I, for one, was not convinced by the Minister on this point.
	The third group of amendments relates to making grants. I am totally unconvinced in this respect. I do not believe that this continued extension of the role of the electoral commission is right. The Minister read out the important roles the commission will have to fulfil. Frankly, I believe that those important roles are more than sufficient without the commission becoming involved in the other aspects that have been mentioned. I am not at all convinced that it ought to adopt grant-making powers to other bodies. It would then have to police those other bodies to ensure that they imparted impartial information. That adds to the role and responsibilities of the commission.

Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord also referred to the role of the European Commission. Some material that emanates from the headquarters of the European Commission in this country is discounted. Whether that is right or wrong is by the way; it is discounted. Would it not be advantageous for the commission to explain what the European Commission and all the other institutions of the European Union do?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It is for government, the European Commission itself and those of us involved in public life to explain to people what these bodies do. I do not think that it is a matter for the electoral commission, especially as--the noble Lord knows this--it is a matter of some controversy. The very fact that he admits that the material issued by the European Commission to inform the public is discounted by many people underlines my point. If the electoral commission put out the same kind of material to explain the same kind of issues, its impartiality might be brought into question by some people who might not approve of what it said. That process would endanger the other roles of the electoral commission which are much more important.
	I was pleased to hear the assurances which have been given. Those assurances may be referred to in the future if anything goes wrong with the electoral commission and it ceases to be the impartial body the noble Lord thinks it will be. I should have liked to hear the Minister say that he would reconsider the wording of the measure so that the meaning of "pending" is made crystal clear and we do not have to refer to another part of the Bill to confirm that meaning. We shall have to return to the institutions of the European Union. I am certainly not convinced about the grant-making bodies. When we reach the relevant amendment I may wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I have a question for the Minister. What is meant by the term,
	"institutions of the European Union"
	as they are not defined? Do the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy comprise institutions? What are the institutions?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the institutions to mean in this instance the functioning parts of the European Union. That measure enables people to understand exactly what they are voting for.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before I call Amendment No. 42A, I inform the Committee that if this amendment is accepted I cannot call Amendments Nos. 44 to 48.

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 42A:
	Page 8, line 30, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 39 and insert ("; and
	(b) any electoral system that has been authorised by enactment, but is not yet in force, for use at the next national or local election").

Lord Norton of Louth: For the reasons I have advanced I believe that Amendment No. 42A would improve Clause 12. As the Government have not indicated that they will give ground with regard to Clause 12, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 129.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 43 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 44, I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment were agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 45.

[Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought the reply on this amendment was entirely unsatisfactory. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 128.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 9, line 9, at end insert--
	("(7) The Scottish Ministers may by order provide that, despite subsection (3), the Commission may perform the functions conferred by this section in relation to local government elections or to local government in Scotland.
	(8) Subsection (6) shall not apply to the expenditure incurred by the Commission in performing their functions exercisable by virtue of an order made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (7); but such expenditure shall not exceed such sum as is for the time being specified for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
	(9) The Scottish Ministers shall reimburse the Commission for any expenditure incurred by them which is attributable to the exercise of any of functions mentioned in subsection (8).
	(10) Section 146(5) shall apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under this section as it applies to an order made by the Secretary of State under this Act and the reference in that section to enactments shall include a reference to any enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
	(11) The power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would not normally intervene, because we have already spoken to the amendment, five months ago, but I am surprised to see it appear on the Marshalled List with an asterisk. An asterisk means that either the amendment is new--I know that it is not--or it has been altered. I want to know why it has been altered.
	While I am at it, I also want to know what will happen if the Scottish Ministers decide not to confer the functions. If there had not been an asterisk, I would not have read it, so the Minister has the asterisk to thank for this intervention.
	Bearing in mind subsection (10), if it is found that an amendment is needed to a United Kingdom Act or order, how can it be done by Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Parliament? Who will be able to do it? I am a little puzzled by that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I knew that I should be grateful for an asterisk. The amendment is starred because the words "by order" have been added in subsection (7). Those words were missed out in error previously. It is clear from new subsection (11) that the power in new subsection (7) to extend the electoral commission's voter education function to cover Scottish local government elections is intended to be exercised by order.
	On the noble Lord's second point, if the Scottish Executive decided that it did not want to buy into the electoral commission, one would assume that it had its reasons. That would be a matter for the Scottish Executive.
	Thirdly, I am advised that there is no need to amend UK legislation for the Scottish Executive to exercise the powers.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Boundary committees]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 50A:
	Page 9, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert--
	("(2) Each Boundary Committee shall consist of--
	(a) a chairman, and
	(b) not less than the appropriate number of other members,
	appointed by the Commission.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) "the appropriate number", in relation to a Boundary Committee, is--
	(a) two, if no functions fall to be exercised by the Committee by virtue of section 17(1), section (Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland)(1) or section 18(1) (as the case may be); and
	(b) four, if any functions fall to be so exercised.").

Lord Bach: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50B, 52A, 53A, 53B, 54A, 55A, 55B, 93A, 313A, 322R and 322T. Despite the apparent detail, the purpose of the amendments is straightforward. The intention is that the Bill should provide for the transfer of the functions of the existing parliamentary and local government boundary commissions to the electoral commission.
	The case for such a transfer is simple. The Jenkins commission on the voting system, about which we have already heard today, pointed to the need for greater co-ordination of the work of the four parliamentary boundary commissions. In addition, a review of the Local Government Commission for England, which reported in 1998, concluded that a merger between the parliamentary and local government boundary commissions for England would lead to improved efficiency and greater effectiveness and coherence in the review of boundaries from ward level up to Westminster constituencies.
	As it stands, the Bill provides for such a merger of functions within the electoral commission. However, the apparent role of the commission essentially is to delegate the exercise of the existing commission's functions to the boundary committees which it will be required to establish.
	On reflection, that is not entirely satisfactory. The full benefits of a merger of the existing boundary commissions would not be realised unless the electoral commission had a clear strategic role in directing and co-ordinating the work of the boundary committees. Without such strategic oversight, there is a danger that the new arrangements will not represent any great advance upon those which exist currently.
	The key amendments in this group are Amendments Nos. 52A and 93A. Amendment No. 52A would insert a new clause which would replace existing Clause 15. The new clause would give effect to a new schedule, inserted by Amendment No. 93A, which amends the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 so as to set out the respective roles and functions of, on the one hand, the electoral commission and, on the other, the boundary committees in relation to the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.
	The new schedule is rather lengthy. However, in large part that is because it would also make a number of equivalent changes to the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998 concerned with the review of electoral boundaries in respect of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.
	The principal points are that, under the revised arrangements, responsibility for keeping under review the distribution of parliamentary constituencies would rest with the electoral commission. It would be for the commission to make a report to the relevant Secretary of State, recommending changes to constituency boundaries. Where the commission decided to make a report, it would then be for the relevant boundary committee to carry out the required review and to submit to the commission proposals as to the recommendations for inclusion in its report.
	The commission could ensure that the four boundary committees took a consistent approach to the review of constituency boundaries by issuing directions to each committee. However, any such directions would themselves need to be consistent with the rules for the redistribution of seats.
	On receipt of a committee's report, the electoral commission would have five options. It could: first, accept the proposed recommendations; secondly, accept the recommendations subject to modifications agreed with the committee; thirdly, reject the recommendations and require the committee to reconsider its proposals; fourthly, reject the recommendations and require the committee to undertake another complete or part review; and, lastly, in the case of a review into only part of the area for which the respective committee is responsible, take no further action.
	We hope and expect that the commission would never have to exercise the option of requiring a further full review. However, it is right that the commission should have that in its armoury; for example, to cover a situation where a committee had failed properly to apply the rules for the redistribution of seats.
	A number of the remaining amendments are consequential upon the revised arrangements. Amendments Nos. 53A, 53B, 55A and 55B are concerned with the order-making powers in Clauses 17 and 18. Those clauses empower the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to transfer to the electoral commission the functions of the Local Government Commission for England and the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales respectively. The amendments would require that the arrangements effected by any such order were consistent with the respective roles of the commission and the boundary committees, as set out in the new schedule.
	The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 54A makes parallel provision for the Scottish Executive to transfer to the electoral commission the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 322R and 322T make minor consequential changes to Schedule 21.
	Amendments Nos. 50A and 50B are concerned with the membership of the boundary committees. Amendment No. 50A provides that, where the functions of a boundary committee extend to the review of local government boundaries, the committee must have a minimum of five members rather than three. That is simply an acknowledgement of the workload of a boundary committee involved in both parliamentary and local government boundary reviews.
	Finally, Amendment No. 50B requires that at least one member of each committee has experience of local government matters in the relevant part of the United Kingdom and also, in the case of the boundary committee for Wales, that one member is a Welsh-speaker. Beyond that, I hope that the changes speak for themselves. I beg to move Amendment No. 50A.

Lord Monson: Can the Minister assure the Committee that the transfer of functions from the existing Boundary Commission for Scotland to the new commission, as provided for in Clauses 13 to 15, will not further delay the reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster to English, Welsh and Northern Irish levels, as stipulated in the Scotland Act? The reduction in the over-representation of Scotland is already taking a scandalously long time.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Briefly, I want to say how much I welcome these government amendments and the amalgamation of the parliamentary and local government boundaries under the strategic oversight of the electoral commission. I believe that during our first Committee day discussion took place as to the role of the electoral commission and that, at that time, it was said that it would cover parliamentary boundaries only. I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I were in favour of introducing local government boundaries into that system.
	It seems to me that that will get rid of the rather ludicrous situation whereby local government boundaries are the building bricks for the parliamentary boundary but never the twain shall meet. At the moment I am working on a local government boundary completely unaware of what the parliamentary outcome might be. That seems very silly indeed. Therefore, I am delighted that this amendment is before us.
	Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one small question. Does the timetable of five years, which was the timescale originally proposed for placing parliamentary boundaries within the work of the electoral commission, still apply?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his clear explanation of the amendments and, indeed, for the way in which he linked them together and explained them to us. I shall probably not be able to do so quite as cleverly as he did because, as the Committee will appreciate, there are quite a lot of amendments in this particular group.
	Perhaps I may make two general points. First, I am surprised that at this stage all these amendments and a new schedule of considerable length have been added to the Bill. I wonder what would have happened if all the Committee proceedings had taken place shortly after 11th May, as the Government would have been left with a Bill which was not complete. It seems to me that perhaps their excuse for the long delay is that they had to burn the midnight oil on several nights in order to deal with some of those issues. However, when one considers that the Bill has already been through the other place, it is odd that this important aspect of the Bill--that is, the relationship between the local government boundaries and the parliamentary boundaries--has not been addressed until the rather postponed Committee stage in this House.
	My second point is that I want to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has just said. One of the daftest aspects of our system is the way in which we try to pretend that local government boundaries and parliamentary boundaries have no relationship. I have quite a revolutionary view: I do not believe that they should necessarily be coterminous. I believe that the determination to use multiples of local government boundaries when making up parliamentary seats has led to some of the nonsenses in the system, especially when one considers the numbers involved in different constituencies.
	I shall not go on about that; I believe that noble Lords have heard me speak about it before. I should like to think that the electoral commission will have the courage to say that, although it is nice to follow local government boundaries--and I understand that--it is not imperative. Other issues are more important--in particular achieving a closer proximity to the electoral quota. One of the problems with the first-past-the-post system and the distortions of it in the current way that it is operating is that we have constituencies of disparate size. That is particularly true in Scotland. I shall not bore the Committee with a detailed explanation.
	If one of the electoral commission's roles is in relation to quotas, will it be able to assist in ensuring that the Scotland Act's sections dealing with that are properly implemented and that the quota in the next review is the same as the quota for England and Wales?
	Amendment No. 50B, I notice, contains some specification about the membership of the committee. It says that one member should be a person with experience of local government matters. On the last Committee day, I was told that the Government refused to specify membership of the committee to allow for a judge to be the chairman of the boundary commission, as has been the custom in the past. They would not specify that. But here they are specifying that there should be someone with experience of local government matters. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will define for the future what "experience" means.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has experience of local government matters. Would that do? I have experience, although mine is a good deal more historic than that of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Indeed, the local authority of which I was a member has long since disappeared into history. I do not think the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has yet disappeared into history.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am afraid so, yes. Brighton Borough Council is no longer, but Brighton and Hove Council is.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, understands what I am talking about. Are we talking about that or are we talking about an official? What is meant by "experience of local government matters"?

Lord Clinton-Davis: Does the noble Lord recall his own past at all? I have every reason to believe that he has every justification for forgetting his past. But having said that, the words of which he complains were used in Conservative legislation time and again.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not complaining about the words. I am merely asking the Minister what he means by them. I am happy about my past. I try not to talk about it too much. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would remember that when it comes to the European Commission. Perhaps we should have a joint pact about not talking too much about our past. In this case, I am merely saying that I do not believe that my past qualifies me as a person experienced in local government after this passage of time.
	I turn now to Schedule 3. Are there any new provisions in it which the Government are introducing? It is a very large schedule.
	I make one final point. I am not sure whether this is the right time to raise it but we are talking about the boundary commission. If it is decided to uncouple the Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Scotland from the Scottish parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, would those rules enable the Boundary Commission for Scotland, under the electoral commission, to draw up separate boundaries for the Scottish Parliament? It would need to do that because the reason for uncoupling is that we should have fewer Members at Westminster than we should have in the Scottish Parliament.
	The Minister may tell me that the Scotland Act currently does not allow for that. He is quite right. But I must tell him that, as I prophesied, there is already a considerable head of steam building up in Scotland about the uncoupling of those two numbers. I wonder whether this Bill would allow the boundary commission to look separately at those two aspects.

Lord Bach: I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I am advised that the Bill will not delay the reduction in Scottish seats about which he is concerned. It is important to note that after five years, the boundary commission will go into the electoral commission. By that stage, the existing Boundary Commission should have reported--its fifth report. I believe that that also answers the question posed by my noble friend Lady Gould.
	It remains the Government's intention to defer the transfer of the functions of the parliamentary boundary commission until around 2005; that is, when it has completed its fifth review. That will ensure that there is no disruption to the current review which is already under way in England.
	I am grateful too for the general support, because that is how I took it, from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the principle behind Schedule 3. It is that principle of bringing together the local and national boundary committees which is what is new about Schedule 3.
	The noble Lord commented on disparate size. I have heard him speak before very interestingly on that issue. He should be well satisfied by the introduction of Schedule 3 because, at all important points, it means that the electoral commission is the powerful body which can decide what it does with a boundary committees review. One of the matters which I raised when I moved the amendment was to suggest that if a boundary committee had not looked in a proper way at the proper distribution of seats, then it should have done so and the electoral commission will be able to do something about it.
	The noble Lord asked about experience in local government. On the face of it, both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and my noble friend Lord Bassam would be excellent candidates for a boundary committee on the basis of their extensive and widespread local government experience. But that would probably be confined to the areas in which they had practised their local government, if I may express the matter in that way. That is a matter for the commission to determine when making appointments to a boundary committee. That phrase reflects exactly the provisions of the Local Government Act 1992 in respect of the Local Government Commission for England.
	I want to be extremely careful in answering the noble Lord's last question. I am not sure that I know the answer at the moment. It is an important question and I know that it exercises the noble Lord particularly. Therefore, I shall write to him with an answer to that particular question and place a copy in the Library as soon as possible.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord for that. It is a rather complicated question. I probably know the answer but I always like to know whether I am right. I shall not tell the noble Lord what I think the answer is. I shall wait until I receive his letter.
	I noted down one point when he was explaining the amendments and I forgot to raise it. He said that the electoral commission could do a number of things with a report from the boundary commission: it could accept it, amend it, send it back and so on. When he said that, I wondered whether the electoral commission would do that of its own accord or do I assume that those political parties which were aggrieved by the findings of the boundary commission would make representations to the electoral commission? Would they be allowed to do that? Would that be part of the process; that the political parties would make representations?
	If that is the case, the electoral commission will be extremely busy after boundary commission reports. If that has not been thought about, perhaps it should be thought about.

Lord Bach: It seems unrealistic to suppose that attempts will not be made by all political parties or none to the electoral commission. But it will be a test of that body's independence as to how it responds to those requests. "Requests" may be putting it rather lightly. The decision as to what to do with the report of the boundary committee will be one for the electoral commission. We are sure that that will be taken in an independent, non-partisan way.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 50B:
	Page 9, line 20, at end insert--
	("( ) The Commission shall, where any functions fall to be exercised by a Boundary Committee as mentioned in subsection (3), so exercise their powers of appointment under this section and section 14 as to secure--
	(a) that at least one of the members of the Committee is a person with experience of local government matters in England, Scotland or Wales (as the case may be); and
	(b) that, in the case of the Boundary Committee for Wales, at least one of the members of the Committee is a person able to speak the Welsh language.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
	Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Deputy Electoral Commissioners]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 9, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) A person shall not be appointed as a Deputy Electoral Commissioner if he is a person who (by virtue of section 3(3A)) may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 52A:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause--

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS

(".--(1) The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in Part I of Schedule (Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions), by virtue of which--
	(a) the functions of each of the Boundary Commissions under section 3(1) and (3) of that Act (functions with respect to keeping under review, and reporting on, representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned) are transferred to the Electoral Commission; and
	(b) functions with respect to--
	(i) the carrying out of reviews under that Act with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom, and
	(ii) the submission to the Electoral Commission of proposed recommendations following any such review,
	are conferred on the Boundary Committee established for that part of the United Kingdom under section 13 above.
	(2) The consequential amendments of other Acts specified in Part II of Schedule (Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions) shall have effect.
	(3) A Boundary Commission shall cease to exist at such time as the Secretary of State, being satisfied that they have no further functions to perform, by order directs.
	(4) In this section "Boundary Commission" means one of the Boundary Commissions constituted under that Act.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Boundary Commissions: transfer of functions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Bach: We intend to oppose the Question that Clause 15 stand part of the Bill for the reason I have stated; that is, we are replacing it, effectively, with the new Schedule 3.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: A word count would show that the Government have replaced a very short clause with a substantial number of lines and words.

Lord Bach: I am sure that is right. However, if we have got it right, it is worth it.

Clause 15 negatived.
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Local Government Commission for England]:
	[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 53A:
	Page 10, line 37, leave out ("the transfer to the Commission of any one or more") and insert ("and in connection with transferring to--
	(a) the Commission, or
	(b) the Boundary Committee for England,
	any").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before calling Amendment No. 53B, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 53C which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Rennard.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 53B:
	Page 10, line 41, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert--
	("(2) The provision made by order under subsection (1) as respects the distribution of functions between the Commission and the Boundary Committee for England shall broadly correspond to that made by Part I of Schedule (Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions) as respects the distribution of functions between those bodies.
	(3) The English Commission shall cease to exist at such time as the Secretary of State, being satisfied that they have no further functions to perform, by order directs.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 53C not moved.]
	Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 54 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 54A:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause--

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND

(".--(1) The Scottish Ministers may by order make provision for and in connection with transferring to--
	(a) the Commission, or
	(b) the Boundary Committee for Scotland,
	any of the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland (in this section referred to as "the Scottish Commission").
	(2) The provision made by order under subsection (1) as respects the distribution of functions between the Commission and the Boundary Committee for Scotland shall broadly correspond to that made by Part I of Schedule (Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions) as respects the distribution of functions between those bodies.
	(3) The Scottish Commission shall cease to exist at such time as the Scottish Ministers, being satisfied that the Scottish Commission have no further functions, by order direct.
	(4) An order under subsection (1) or (3) may include provision for the transfer to the Commission--
	(a) of the staff of the Scottish Commission, and
	(b) of any property (including rights and interests of any description) and liabilities to which the Scottish Commission are entitled or subject;
	and an order which contains provision such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property or liabilities otherwise than by the order.
	(5) An order under subsection (3) may include provision for the abolition of any duty in compliance with which the Scottish Commission was established or constituted.
	(6) Section 146(5) shall apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under this section as it applies to an order made by the Secretary of State under this Act and the reference in that section to enactments shall include a reference to any enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
	(7) Any power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.
	(8) The Scottish Ministers shall reimburse the Commission for any expenditure incurred by them which is attributable to the exercise of any of the functions transferred by an order made under subsection (1).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales]:

Viscount Astor: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 11, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Viscount Astor: I did not move Amendment No. 53 because I assumed that the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches would move Amendment No. 53C. I do not want to detain the Committee, but it might be helpful if I move Amendment No. 55. That would then enable us to break for dinner before we move on to Northern Ireland. If noble Lords opposite wish to start that, I suspect that the dinner break will not be for at least an hour and a half.

Lord Bach: I am extremely tempted by the noble Lord's proposition. However, sitting alongside me is the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I do not think that he is so tempted.

Viscount Astor: I am grateful. I am trying to be helpful to the Committee and to ensure that Ministers have a well deserved break.
	Like Amendment No. 53, Amendment No. 55 seeks to leave out the word "may" and insert the word "shall". They relate to Clauses 17 and 18, and concern transfers. The Bill currently states that the Secretary of State "may" make an order in all these instances. Having made an order, the commission "shall" make arrangements.
	We believe that there is a slight anomaly. We assume that it is the Government's absolute intention that the Secretary of State will make an order. Therefore, if one follows the logic of that argument, it surely must make sense that the wording should say that the Secretary of State "shall" make an order. We have debated in many Bills the words "shall" and "may". I am sure that similar arguments will arise to those we have had before.
	My point is a serious one. The word "may" immediately raises questions: Is the Secretary of State going to put this off? Is he going to have a longer wait? When will this happen? Surely the word "shall" would be clearer to anybody reading the Bill. That would give a clear signal of the Government's intentions. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: Amendments Nos. 55 and 64, which are in the same group--Amendment No. 53 not having been moved--are concerned with separate provisions which provide for the transfer of functions or of property, rights and liabilities to the electoral commission. In each case, the transfer is to be effected by order. If these clauses are to impose a duty to act, there would be the further question as to the time by which the duty must be exercised. That is our argument against Amendment No. 64.
	It is certainly the Government's intention to exercise the order-making power in Clause 17 in order to transfer functions of the Local Government Commission for England to the electoral commission. The order-making power in Clause 21(5) is precautionary in nature. We are in discussion with the Registrar of Companies about the transfer of his functions under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. It remains to be seen, however, whether there is much in the way of property, rights and liabilities to be transferred to the commission. It is possible that some liabilities, for example in relation to legal proceedings, should remain with the registrar.
	As far as concerns Amendment No. 55, there is a further argument. The use of "shall" in the context of Clause 18(1) would be particularly inappropriate. We do not want to go over devolution points yet again. But the position is that the National Assembly for Wales has devolved responsibility for local government electoral and administrative boundaries in Wales. The purpose of Clause 18 is to provide the National Assembly for Wales with the legal basis for transferring the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission should it wish to do so. It is the Assembly's decision. By contrast, Amendment No. 55, if passed, would make the Assembly's decision for it.
	In the light of the explanation on Amendment No. 55, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I understand that with the insertion of the word "shall", the Bill might empower the Secretary of State in Clause 17. However, as the Minister stated, Clause 18(1) relates to the National Assembly for Wales. It is probably not right, therefore, that the word "shall" is used because I think I am right in saying that the Bill cannot dictate to the Assembly, as the Minister stated.
	I turn to Amendment No. 64. Page 13, line 1, provides:
	"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any property".
	That obviously follows the previous amendment. The argument has therefore been covered by the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 55A and 55B:
	Page 11, line 14, leave out ("the transfer to the Commission of any one or more") and insert ("and in connection with transferring to--
	(a) the Commission, or
	(b) the Boundary Committee for Wales,
	any").
	Page 11, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert--
	("(2) The provision made by order under subsection (1) as respects the distribution of functions between the Commission and the Boundary Committee for Wales shall broadly correspond to that made by Part I of Schedule (Transfer of functions of Boundary Commissions) as respects the distribution of functions between those bodies.
	(3) The Welsh Commission shall cease to exist at such time as the National Assembly for Wales, being satisfied that they have no further functions to perform, by order directs.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 19 agreed to.

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Dental Sedation

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to increase the training of dentists and dental nurses in dental sedation following the abolition of the use of general anaesthetics by general dental practitioners.
	My Lords, I graduated as a Bachelor of Dental Surgery from the University of Sydney and, like many other Australian dentists, came to England to help to meet the great NHS need. I was in general practice in London for 35 years.
	The Sydney teaching was totally opposed to general anaesthesia in dental surgeries. Although our predecessor left the gas machine he had used on hundreds of patients, I never used it. It was the most basic I have ever seen; a museum piece. It had none of today's safety devices or flow meters. We did all our work under local anaesthetic.
	I believe it was in the 1960s that intravenous sedation and intravenous anaesthesia became common. I wrote to the dental press opposing those. Correspondents replied to ask me what I knew about it. I realised I knew nothing. I decided to enrol for any and all courses available to dentists so that I would be able to oppose general anaesthesia more effectively. The more I learnt, the more I appreciated that the role for general anaesthesia in dental practice was to enable patients to have treatment.
	The extreme example of dental fear which remains in my memory is of a patient who arrived on time for his appointment but was too terrified even to enter the building for an hour afterwards. He had one of the worst dental abscesses I have ever seen and was in great pain. I remarked on a bone sticking out of his hand. He told me he had broken it but had been too afraid to see a doctor. It had healed itself in that malformed shape. His fear was palpable and his need very great. A local anaesthetic would not work with such an abscess. The tooth was extracted by the operator within 30 seconds; the abscess drained and the patient fully conscious again in three minutes. A week later the same man walked happily into the surgery and had his other treatment under local anaesthetic. His fear was fear of the unknown. He had never been to a dentist in his life. He became a good patient.
	Over the years I have given thousands of anaesthetics, for other dentists, for extractions or fillings.
	There is always a risk in general anaesthesia and I am not opposed to the banning of it from the dental surgery from December 2001, but it is essential that patients should continue to have a way of overcoming worry, anxiety and, in the worst cases, genuine fear of attending for dental treatment. The need for sedation will increase.
	For a child's first visit to the dentist to be when he is in pain can be a damaging experience which can last for life. Sadly, the most under-privileged children whose parents are totally unaware of dental problems are the ones who suffer most in that way. The Minister knows that I feel strongly that only fluoridation of water can help those children and I have drawn his attention often to the difference in dental standards between the children in the West Midlands, with fluoridated water for many years, and the North West of England. I refer him to paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 of Modernising NHS Dentistry. The water companies have already made clear that they want the Government to make it mandatory. Only then will they fluoridate the water supplies.
	If a person has been awake all night with toothache, it is essential that urgent and immediate treatment be given for relief of pain. Clinics or hospitals able to treat the tooth or, if necessary, give a general anaesthetic for extraction, must be instantly available. For a dentist simply to provide tablets for pain relief is not enough. If it is true that 100 children a week were having emergency dental extractions in Blackburn last year, what is the position now? What will it be after general anaesthetics are completely banned in 2001? How will the Minister ensure that there are adequate numbers of specialist anaesthetists in hospitals able to deal immediately with emergencies? Can he assure me that those children will not be condemned to waiting longer in pain? And has he considered providing that specialist service within his new dental access centres?
	If, as is certainly the case, the need for anxiety and fear control in the dental surgery can no longer be met by general anaesthesia, then training in other forms of sedation is essential. Dental sedation can vary widely from simple words of comfort and reassurance, through oral medication by tablets, to intravenous treatment. But at all times the patient's needs must be met, and safely.
	There are too few courses available to dentists. A few NHS-funded Section 63 postgraduate courses are provided by local postgraduate deans--not nearly enough. Outside London only Newcastle provides postgraduate training. The Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry (SAAD) runs private courses for 60 dentists at a time at £400 each and for nurses at £200 each. Dentists meet those costs from their own pockets. The fact that they do so is an indication of the importance they attach to learning how to provide the best and safest sedation. There are simply not enough courses. All SAAD courses are full until the end of the year.
	The Department of Health's publication, A Conscious Decision, makes clear that many patients will not seek dental treatment unless they can be sedated. It is suggested that dentists unskilled in sedation can refer patients to those who do offer sedation. That does not work as most of those practices have as many patients as they can cope with.
	Intravenous sedation is effective and, used correctly, safe. However, there is a fine line between conscious sedation and anaesthesia. It is essential that the dentist or dental nurse providing sedation should know the drugs to use and the correct dosage to give. Retaining contact with the conscious patient at all times is the only guarantee that it remains sedation. Even relative analgesia, which uses gases for sedation, can pose risks, as gases have to be titrated to match each patient's needs.
	Many years ago, as a member of the local dental committee, I had the duty of acting for a practitioner whose sedated patient had died in the surgery. It was a horrendous case and totally indefensible. With improved knowledge, different drugs, safety precautions and training I do not believe it could happen now. That was the case of a seven year-old child, the intravenous sedation being given under the Jorgensen technique--a cocktail of particularly potent and dangerous drugs. The practitioner had never used the technique before and had no properly trained assistant with him nor resuscitation equipment. He injected a full dose and, thinking it was not enough, fatally repeated the dose.
	One good suggestion now put forward is that a "mentor" system be used for newly-trained sedationists. I favour that. The tragedy I described would not have occurred if a supervisor, experienced and aware of patient reaction, had been present for the trainee's first practical use of this complicated technique. Nowadays emergency equipment must be available in the surgery. The Poswillo report was excellent in establishing standards. Designed for general anaesthesia they apply well to intravenous sedation. Dentists are trained in basic life support techniques and have the necessary resuscitation equipment to hand, not just for treating sedated patients, but any patient, as an emergency, can arise at a dental surgery at any time. The dental team has to be trained and ready and, as in the case of fire drills, regular practice is necessary.
	There are costs in terms of time and money in all these training procedures, and NHS fees have the effect of limiting the amount of time a practitioner can spend on any procedure. The General Dental Council recommends that dentists doing sedation must have had relevant postgraduate training and undertake regular, continuing education.
	The Government must not forget that the dental contract, introduced after agreement with the British Dental Association in 1990 was opposed by 63 per cent of the profession, who considered it unworkable. National Health Service dentistry has gone steadily downhill since then. The General Dental Practitioners Association is another body representative of many NHS dentists. It is important that the Government, if they want their new dental NHS plan to work, consult the BDA, the GDPA and, in the matter of sedation training, the SAAD. Are the Government going to ensure that more courses are available for NHS dentists and will they make a commitment to funding those courses?
	I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that sedation techniques will be given the necessary priority and funding will be made available to ensure that anxiety or fear do not prevent patients from attending for necessary dental treatment.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I want to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for initiating a debate on this most interesting subject. The noble Baroness is an expert on the subject and I am not.
	I am not a dentist, but I have very likely been to the dentist more than any Member of your Lordships' House. And while I speak as best I can, largely from the patient's viewpoint, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if my terminology is not always correct.
	The United Kingdom is the only country in the world where general anaesthesia is commonplace for dental treatment. Every year 350,000 British patients--mainly children--have their dental work carried out under general anaesthetic. This tradition may derive from the fact that the first anaesthesia used in any connection is thought to have been carried out by the dentist, William Thomas Morton, who in 1846 used ether to send a patient to sleep for a difficult tooth extraction.
	However, according to the BBC's online network medical notes, modern techniques mean that no dental surgery requires more than local anaesthesia, perhaps used in combination with sedation. The prevailing belief is that general anaesthesia, which has been called "a practice out of time", helps those suffering from a true phobia of dentistry, of whom it is calculated there are between 6 and 14 per cent in this country. But experts tell us that "being put to sleep" is not the best way to overcome fear of the dentist. In fact, I believe that my own--I think I can say "dreadful"--problems with my teeth began with my childhood terror of what I saw as being forced to lose consciousness and being sent to sleep against my will. The result of two such experiences kept me from the dentist's surgery for years, so that when pain at last forced me to go--well, I shall not harrow your Lordships with details.
	Perhaps the only way for someone like me to conquer dentist-phobia is to do what I was obliged to do if I was not to lose my teeth at an early age, as my parents did. One has to make oneself attend for check-ups so often that the dentist's surgery ceases to terrify and becomes commonplace. For me, sedation with Valium while my heart rate is monitored has become rather a pleasant experience. Indeed, I have sometimes, while having root canal treatment or a bone graft, done that which I would once have believed impossible and fallen asleep.
	Only if the procedure is carried out in a hospital will general anaesthesia still be possible. This may continue to be the only option for children, often those from a socially deprived community who suffer from advanced tooth decay. Valium for conscious sedation can only be given to them orally, so my dentist tells me, in syrup form, which means a half-hour delay in a waiting room, a place which may already be unnerving, before it takes effect.
	General anaesthesia for any medical procedures always carries a risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has told us, albeit a very small one. But if it is taken out of the dentist's surgery, as it will be, and conscious sedation finds its place in mainstream dentistry, a gap will inevitably be left in dental practice. This situation, as your Lordships have been told by the noble Baroness, is causing serious alarm among practitioners. Far from all dentists and dental nurses are competent to administer conscious sedation. The answer to safe sedation lies in first ensuring that students at least graduate fully aware of these important skills as part of overall pain and anxiety control.
	When I was at the dentist's last Thursday--where else?--I asked the dental nurse her views on taking a training course in sedation techniques. She was enthusiastic and agreed that it would interest her very much. Another dental nurse has since told me that she would enjoy expanding her horizons and taking on more responsibility in this way.
	Dentists and dental nurses should also be psychologists in order to cope more effectively with anxious children and those who have grown into anxious adults. The Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry, referred to by the noble Baroness, will this year hold its annual conference on the subject "The Anxious Child". One speaker attending, an expert on clinical hypnosis, claims that treating children under hypnosis reduces stress levels for both patient and practitioner. Another is a consultant health psychologist who works with plastic surgeons helping children cope with painful and invasive treatment. Then there is a doctor who has worked in the community dental service for 25 years, using inhalation sedation for most of that time, mainly for anxious children.
	This seeming digression of mine is in fact pertinent, for I believe that the merits of conscious sedation against general anaesthesia cannot be examined without taking in the issue of patient fear. My grandchildren in the United States attend a dentist where the environment is so delightful and child-oriented, with so many diversions, games and so on provided during the waiting time, followed by an encounter with a charming and likeable dentist in an attractive room, that fear of dentistry has never occurred to them. When we achieve similar conditions in the United Kingdom we shall have begun the task of raising a generation with perfect trouble-free teeth who may never need anaesthesia or sedation at all.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for introducing the debate and congratulate her on her good timing. This is the first debate on dentistry since the delayed Dental Strategy report, which promises £100 million to create new capacity for dentists to provide treatment on the NHS, to support the modernising of practices and enable everyone to find an NHS dentist by the end of next year.
	The dental profession has always been at the forefront of efficient pain and anxiety control. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, it was a dentist who administered the first ever general anaesthetic. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that funding will be made available to improve training for dentists at both under and postgraduate level, and to train ancillary staff in this important aspect of clinical expertise which has evolved from general anaesthesia.
	I have several interests to declare which have prompted my asking the exact same Question as my noble friend on various occasions over the past two or three years. When general anaesthesia was first banned for operator/anaesthetists, then for two dentists working together and then totally in dental surgeries, I was unable to find any correlation between protection of the public--for that is what we are talking about--and the providers of the treatment. The Minister and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and previous Ministers from both parties have answered my many questions on this subject for more than 30 years.
	Between 1991 and 1999 there have been 12 deaths associated with general anaesthesia in dental surgeries. Only two of those regrettable deaths were caused by a dental practitioner. All 12, because they occurred during dental treatment, created massive interest in the media and resulted in the dental profession being severely criticised for incidents that are very rare and are predominantly caused by either medical practitioners or anaesthetists. I am sure that the Minister will not wish tonight to tell us how many anaesthetic deaths occur each day in our hospitals and clinics which do not receive any such media attention.
	I have been a dental anaesthetist and provider of dental sedation for more than 33 years. I have administered something in the region of 60,000 anaesthetics and sedations and continue to provide a service for nervous patients using sedative techniques. I am the immediate past-president of the Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry and was a member of the general anaesthetics/sedation review group of the General Dental Council.
	There are significant numbers of actual and potential patients who have a genuine fear of dental treatment. This evening the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, has provided graphic detail of that. I admit that I prefer to be sedated when my teeth are being treated. Since I started working on sedation there have been several working parties and reports: the report of a joint sub-committee on dental anaesthesia to the Central Health Services Council in 1967; the Wylie report on the working party on training in dental anaesthesia in 1978; the Seward report on training in dental anaesthesia in 1981; the Poswillo report in 1989, which caused the greatest upheaval; and, most recently, the report of a group chaired by the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Dental Officer entitled A Conscious Decision.
	Each report has eroded the right of dentists, many with considerable experience, to work as they would wish and to administer general anaesthetics. The latest puts general anaesthesia where we all knew it would end up, in hospital, leaving conscious sedation where it belongs, in mainstream dentistry. The report also concludes that the answer to patient safety in conscious sedation lies in education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
	From the end of December 2001, all general anaesthesia in dentistry must be in district general hospitals, and current providers must meet rigorous standards. The report also defines "district general hospital" for the first time, which surely will have wide repercussions as to the way in which medicine is practised in this country. Perhaps the Minister can say when similar restrictions will be placed on medical practitioners who carry out procedures under general anaesthetic away from the intensive care facilities of a district general hospital.
	Among the 10 recommendations there is a requirement to follow the lead taken by the GDC's document Maintaining Standards which highlights the need for higher standards in resuscitation training throughout the profession and a requirement to collect data on fatal and non-fatal complications in both general anaesthesia and conscious sedation.
	In August I tabled a Question for Written Answer (HL3770) and was informed by the Minister that no data was available on morbidity or private sector provision. The noble Lord promised that his department would take it forward, and I am delighted by the report's finding that the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry should undertake this study. Can the noble Lord tell me when that is likely to begin?
	It is vital that the importance of undergraduate teaching in sedation is fully realised. If the teaching hospitals cannot yet produce new dentists who on graduation are competent to administer conscious sedation, at least they should be fully aware of the potential of those skills as part of overall pain and anxiety control for their patients. The dental schools are all working towards improved training in sedation techniques; some are doing better than others. In the postgraduate field, standards also vary. I am proud of my association with the Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry whose two courses each year for general dental practitioners and dental nurses are widely respected and almost full before they are advertised.
	I am sure the Minister will tell us that there are plans to fund training in sedation, but I remind him that conscious sedation means that the patient remains awake; it is not an analgesic and local anaesthesia is still required. Patients may not lose consciousness.
	In the days when a practitioner could prescribe the treatment that he or she considered best--for example, for the removal of decayed teeth to alleviate pain or for orthodontic reasons--it could be done safely in a few minutes under a one-minute general anaesthetic. That is now not possible. Apart from the very light sedation with nitrous oxide and oxygen, it is very difficult to sedate children with modern drugs and many cases must now be referred to hospital. In the past I have asked the Minister whether that will influence waiting lists, and I repeat that question this evening.
	In conclusion, I am sure that in debating dental matters this evening the Minister will use this opportunity to confirm that, following publication of the report on fluoridation by the University of York, he will take immediate steps to ensure that water authorities add fluoride to all public water supplies. That simple move would at least take away some of the need for general anaesthesia in dentistry.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the noble Baroness on securing a debate on such an important matter. I am puzzled as to why we do not debate dentistry a little more often in either House, willing as we always are to place the microscope on the rest of the medical profession. It would be good for dentists, their science and craft if we spent a little more time talking up the achievements of dentists, especially explaining that a little discomfort in the dentist's chair when young can spare us much pain on Thursday afternoons when we are older, as implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell.
	Apart from some years of concern and activity on the issue of medical and dental ethics, I claim no credentials for speaking in this debate other than the rather important one that from time to time I am a dental patient. I defer willingly to the technical expertise of at least two speakers in the debate so far, although I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, did not declare as an interest--perhaps advisedly--his chairmanship of the Refreshment Sub-Committee. However, as the grandson of a hilariously entertaining orthodontist, I never thought the dentist to be an ogre. I vividly remember that the dentist father of my first school friend manufactured a denture for Dan, his springer spaniel. That led me to the early view that dentists were kind and, to say the least, versatile.
	My general practitioner father used to administer general anaesthetics in that dentist's surgery. Both he and the dentist were experienced and skilled and, fortunately, nothing went wrong. However, by the 1960s my father had decided that, whatever he had learnt about anaesthetics during his early training, which had been in the 1920s and during the second world war dealing with wounded soldiers, general anaesthetics were best left to people who did nothing else and in a proper clinical setting.
	Nearly 40 years later we have the very welcome decision by the Government that general anaesthetics for dental treatment in England should, from January 2000, be administered only in hospitals. As a Welsh resident, I welcome that and seek an assurance from the Minister that that could be extended to Wales if adopted by the Welsh Assembly.
	It will be helpful if the Minister reminds the House of the extra resources that hospital services will expend in providing those facilities at the beginning of 2002. Can he confirm that those resources will be provided as an addition to the relevant NHS budgets? Will he also assure us that the additional specialist and associate specialist clinicians and nurses will be fully funded by extra money so that there is no drag on other provision in the NHS?
	I suggest to the Minister that a continuing part of the Government's health education policy should be to educate children that dentistry does not hurt--or not much--that there is nothing to fear, and that awareness of what is happening during treatment is grown up and sensible. Surely, the prime aim should be a continuing reduction in general anaesthetics in dentistry whenever it can be avoided. The success of that aim would be assisted by a stronger commitment to conscious sedation which is referred to in the Question tabled by the noble Baroness. I shall not repeat what has already been said about the advantages of conscious sedation. However, I hope that, as part of a progressive approach, where children are sedated relative analgesia becomes the norm as it is elsewhere in countries with good dental health among their child populations.
	I am advised that relative analgesia has very wide safety margins, which obviously makes it advantageous in use with children. This means that the Government should engage with dentists through their representative bodies to ensure that proper fees and, where appropriate, capital grants or loans are paid to increase the practice of relative analgesia for children in this country.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that when the new arrangements which remove all general anaesthetics into the hospitals come into practice, rural areas will not be disadvantaged. As he knows, rural areas have been poor relations with regard to NHS dentistry, and this has certainly been the case in the part of Wales where I live and which I represented in the other place for some years.
	Finally, I should like to address some ethical considerations which are especially important in cases of anaesthetised and sedated patients. In Maintaining Standards, the ethical guidance issued to practitioners by the General Dental Council, there are set out commendably clear and firm standards for the profession. As the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, fortunately the cases in which deaths have occurred during anaesthesia in a dentist's surgery have been rare. Nevertheless, the general public have the expectation that any significant failures will be met by firm action. The few who do not practise responsibility for the competence of their whole teams, including their nurses, diminish the diligence and good reputation of the majority who do.
	The taking of a full history, the obtaining of informed consent, the keeping of careful and contemporaneous records, the duty to act only within their range of fully trained competence, the willingness to refer elsewhere, the presence of a third party whenever treating children or sedating patients are all elementary examples of areas of failure that the profession must continue to police rigorously. So is incompetent sedation, however rarely it occurs.
	I say that because, as never before, the self-regulation of the professions is under scrutiny and even threat. The medical and dental professions are well to the front of the firing line in that context. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will keep the effectiveness of the self-regulatory organisations and their willingness to change under review. I believe these professions will continue to adapt with the times and that self-regulation remains appropriate, albeit modified from its present form. But it should never be taken for granted that the professions are able to adapt in an acceptable way. That is why scrutiny is needed.

Earl Howe: My Lords, with the notable exception of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, there can be few noble Lords as well qualified as my noble friend Baroness Gardner to introduce a debate on dentistry, and she has done so in her customarily succinct and compelling way. This is without doubt an issue that has important ramifications for public health. As my noble friend has explained, there is cause for some considerable concern about it.
	That concern does not relate directly to the Government's decision in July to remove dental general anaesthesia from dental practices. The British Dental Association has been calling for that to happen for some time. Indeed, anyone who has been even dimly aware from press reports of patients who have died as a result of receiving general anaesthetics in dentists' surgeries will have little doubt that the issue is one that needs to be addressed. The UK is one of only two countries in Europe that allows general anaesthetics to be given in the surgery.
	Last year 48,500 general anaesthetics were administered in general dental practice in England on the NHS. It is a procedure that most of the time can be conducted perfectly safely. But from time to time there are tragedies. One death in a dentist's chair is one death too many. It is sensible and right that from the end of next year dental general anaesthetics should be carried out in a hospital setting, where there is all the necessary equipment for safe delivery of anaesthetics as well as ready access to emergency facilities.
	Some in the profession maintain that far too many general anaesthetics are administered unnecessarily in dentistry, notwithstanding the fact that the number of such anaesthetics has fallen quite sharply over the past few years following guidance from the General Dental Council. Whether or not that is a valid judgment, it is obvious that the latest change of policy will serve to limit the availability of general anaesthetics in dentistry still further. It is important to realise that this will have consequences. There is a minority of patients--perhaps 10 per cent--for whom fear of pain during treatment is a major obstacle to going to the dentist. Some cannot even countenance the pain of having an injection for a local anaesthetic in the gum. Unless the anxiety of such patients can be alleviated, they will almost certainly not seek treatment at all.
	Pain control by sedation is the well-tried route to achieving that. Sedation is of course safer than a general anaesthetic because the patient does not lose consciousness. Its importance in dental practice is therefore growing and likely to grow further. But, as my noble friend has explained so well, there is now a serious worry that too few British dentists receive adequate training in sedation techniques. An article by Leitch and Girdler in the British Dental Journal of 26th February of this year sets out the basis for that concern. In the light of questionnaires sent to the 16 dental schools in the UK and Ireland--13 of whom replied--a picture emerged of some serious variations in dental undergraduate teaching. At most schools students gained little or no hands-on experience in sedation. Only two schools had departments dedicated to the subject. New graduates felt that they were inadequately prepared in the practice of sedation. In two schools there were no lectures or seminars on it whatever.
	The article lists some revealing comments by staff. One said:
	"Sedation is seen as a separate subject, not as an adjunct to treatment".
	Another said:
	"We need greater facilities to be able to implement hands-on training".
	Another said:
	"Not enough teachers, insufficient time in the curriculum, inadequate facilities".
	From someone else:
	"Insufficient time to supervise sedation".
	And again:
	"The teaching is left to one department. There is a flat refusal to introduce sedation into other departments".
	Finally one said that sedation is "very under-funded".
	Those remarks, and the findings generally, suggest that there is much to be done. For a long time the GDC has recommended that undergraduate and postgraduate dental students should have a sound knowledge of the theory and practice of sedation; that is to say, sedation by means of intravenous injection and by inhalation of gas and air. It has also recommended that there should be collaboration between dental teachers and anaesthetic departments in dental schools. Not only does that not happen for the most part, but where sedation is taught, Leitch and Girdler found that the students believed they were getting an adequate education in the subject when in fact they were not. It is bad enough to know that you are ignorant. It is even worse to be ignorant and believe that you are adequately informed, not least because of the repercussions that that might have for patient.
	I hope that the Minister will not say that it is for the dental profession to put its own house in order. If, as seems indisputable, there is a need to invest more money in sedation training, that cannot be done by the schools on their own. The common core curriculum now being considered by the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners needs to be encouraged and funded. I should be glad if the Minister could say what the Government are doing to provide improved funding for dental training. In particular, does he agree that there have been savings made in the NHS budget since the end of 1998 as a result of the decrease in general dental anaesthesia; and will he consider redirecting those savings into sedation training?
	The Government have made much of their pledge to widen access to NHS dentists. That is an admirable objective. However, there is also an agenda to improve quality, not only in NHS dentistry but also in private dentistry. In the recent report by the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Dental Officer entitled A Conscious Decision, there are recommendations on promoting high standards of sedation and sedation training, and higher standards of resuscitation. It is noticeable that the Government's dental strategy pays scant acknowledgement to those recommendations.
	A further and significant recommendation is that comparable standards should be maintained and enforced in NHS and private dental practice. My mind goes back to the debates we had on the Care Standards Bill only a few months ago when I argued the case for a single, overarching system of inspection and enforcement for both the NHS and the private sector. That case was not accepted by the Government, but the issue is still in sharp focus. I should be glad to hear from the Minister how he proposes to ensure that standards of care in both sectors are indeed comparable. Can he also say by what regulatory means general dental anaesthesia is to be banned from private dental surgeries?
	The criticism of the Government's dental strategy voiced by the BDA, which I feel I have to echo, is that there is nothing all that new in it. What appears to be new is the funding element, but the £100 million announced for NHS dentistry turns out on further examination to include £40 million already announced earlier in the year. I worry that that will not be enough to tackle the underfunding of NHS dentistry, and especially the problem of poor retention of NHS dentists, about which the strategy document says very little. The danger, to my mind, is that the Government have raised expectations beyond what is realistically deliverable within the timescale that they have set for the strategy. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with reassurance that the strategy is indeed comprehensive and that it is on track.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. She has always taken a keen interest in NHS affairs generally and her expertise in dentistry is well known both in your Lordships' House and beyond. She shared with us her 35 years' experience in dentistry, which brought home to me the real fear experienced by some patients when they receive dental treatment and the skills of so many of our dentists in meeting that challenge.
	It is good that we are able to debate dentistry today. I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that we rarely have that opportunity. I certainly believe that we are well served by the dental profession and that we should see dentistry as being very much a core part of the National Health Service. I feel slightly pained that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, should say that there is nothing new in the dental strategy. It presents a cohesive set of proposals and intentions which will improve access for patients, improve quality, improve regulation and empower patients through better information. It seeks to ensure that health authorities are given a pivotal role in the future so that the strategy is delivered at local level.
	One of the problems of the past few years is that dentistry has become rather disengaged from the NHS at local level. The NHS faces a major task in re-engaging with the profession and with local dental committees. It must also ensure that the contribution dentistry has to make to the wider NHS picture is fully recognised. I mention as one example the role of the health improvement programmes which represent the plans and programmes of the local health community in terms of both assessing health needs and ensuring that the services provided and the plans agreed meet those needs. I want to see dentistry being fully part of that process. It has been made abundantly clear to the NHS locally that engagement of the NHS with dentistry is to be a priority and that it can expect to be performance managed vigorously to ensure that that happens.
	One other issue was raised which is rather more general than the Question before the House today. It is a favourite subject of mine--fluoridation. As someone who lives in Birmingham, I am well aware of the dental benefits of fluoridation. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, perhaps the most vivid impact of fluoridation can be seen in Sandwell, which essentially is West Bromwich. It is one of the most deprived health communities in the country, yet it is in the top 10 in terms of oral health because of fluoridation. As noble Lords will know, a report by the York Centre was published less than a week ago. It showed that fluoridation of water helps to reduce tooth decay. It also indicated that from the research reviewed--hundreds of pieces of research world-wide were reviewed--no association could be found between water fluoridation and cancer, bone fracture or Down's Syndrome, which is what had been alleged. The report did refer to a higher incidence of fluoride levels. My conclusion is that, certainly in areas of high tooth decay, health authorities should continue to see fluoridation as one option in their oral health strategy.
	As far as concerns legislation, constructive discussions are taking place with the water companies. I think it better to wait to see the outcome of those discussions before we look at the potential for legislation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the real fear of patients and my noble friend Lady Rendell brought that vividly to our attention. We must all share the noble Baroness's ambition to see children visiting the dentist without fear. That is the challenge before us. In the past few years there has been considerable debate in relation to the use of general anaesthesia. It was in November 1998 that the General Dental Council issued ethical guidance which effectively prohibited dentists from providing general anaesthesia. That was prompted by a number of deaths, particularly of young children, that had occurred in the late 1990s and coincided with a small but definite rise in the number of general anaesthetics being administered for dental treatment.
	Following the GDC ethical guidance, the numbers of general anaesthetics provided in high street dental practices fell by about 80 per cent. What seems clear from that is that there has not been merely a straight and equal shift since 1998 from providing general anaesthesia to providing sedation as an alternative method of pain and anxiety control. What has clearly also happened has been a reappraisal by many dentists of the pain and anxiety relief measures needed for those patients who formerly were regarded as general anaesthetic cases. That has undoubtedly made for a safer environment in high street dentistry.
	At this stage, perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. The noble Lord is a past president of SAAD. That has been at the forefront of pioneering training in all forms of dental anaesthesia and conscious sedation. As an experienced sedationist for dental treatment, the noble Lord has been a most valued member of the General Dental Council's working party on sedation. More recently, his advice to the council when amending its ethical guidance regarding general anaesthesia and sedation has been extremely helpful.
	At the same time that the GDC announced its revised ethical guidance in 1998 my right honourable friend Alan Milburn, then Minister of State for Health, asked the Chief Dental Officer and the Chief Medical Officer to review the use of general anaesthesia and sedation for dental treatment. The report of that review, entitled A Conscious Decision, was published this summer and the Government have accepted its recommendations.
	It was an extremely interesting review. It charted provision over the past 35 years, together with its accompanying mortality. It looked in detail at current provision and provided an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. The review recommended unequivocally that the provision of general anaesthesia for dental treatment should be confined to a hospital setting from 1st January 2002. The deadline was set because it was recognised that change could not be achieved in an orderly manner overnight.
	The review considered that sedation when the patient is awake and can respond verbally is safer than general anaesthesia, but the administration of any drug which can alter the mental state of a person is associated with varying degrees of risk. As I stated earlier, we have not seen, nor would we necessarily expect there to be, a direct switch over to sedation for all previous general anaesthesia cases. It is important that verbal contact should be maintained with a patient. Furthermore, the report considered that any technique, including so-called "deep sedation", which was intended or was likely to render the patient unconscious at any time, should be regarded as general anaesthesia. We are particularly keen to maintain the downward pressure on the provision of general anaesthesia regardless of where it is provided while ensuring that pain and anxiety control for dental treatment is appropriate and clinically indicated.
	This is not a matter only for government. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that self-regulating professions such as medicine and dentistry also have a direct responsibility for patient protection. As matters of general good clinical practice, individual practitioners should be looking at their working methods to see how they can be improved, in particular when faced with patients who are disproportionately anxious. To that end, I very much agree with what my noble friend Lady Rendell had to say.
	We are not aware of general problems as regards the provision of conscious sedation within the general dental services of the NHS, but if specific issues have arisen we shall be glad to be informed of them so that appropriate action can be taken.
	Perhaps I may turn to the matter of postgraduate training because it is clearly an important point that arose several times during the debate. Postgraduate training in sedation has increased over the past decade and since 1991 it has been a priority topic for postgraduate training in the public sector. In 1998-99, almost 450 courses in England funded by the department through the National Centre for Continuing Post-graduate Education of Dentists were related to sedation. However, I wish to assure noble Lords that we are not complacent. We are already taking steps to increase the provision of training so that dentists are able to deliver conscious sedation that is both effective and safe for those who need it.
	The review of general anaesthesia and sedation emphasised that, in the shorter term, we need to concentrate on the provision of practically-based courses. The NCCPED has established a group to assess the current provision of sedation training and to provide proposals for delivering an increase. The group is expected to report at the turn of the year, with recommendations to the director of the NCCPED. That will then allow a year in which to increase the number of dentists trained in sedation.
	As regards the issue of dental nurses, again I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and my noble friend Lady Rendell on the role played by dental nurses. Ethical guidance issued by the GDC in May 1999 states that all staff must be trained in the use of conscious sedation and as a team in the management of sedation-related complications. This is of particular importance where the dentist is combining his normal role with that of a sedationist. The report A Conscious Decision recommends that an assistant to the sedationist should be present throughout the course of dental sedation. Furthermore, dental nurses are of crucial importance should there be a catastrophic collapse of the patient. While it is intended that dental nurses should be registered with the GDC and we would certainly want to see training needs considered in that context, in the short term we also wish to see what recommendations are to be made for dental nurses in respect of sedation training needs by the NCCPED working party.
	The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the training of undergraduate dentists. Again, I do not think there is any doubt that at present the situation is somewhat patchy at best in UK dental schools. We accept that, in the longer term, this must be addressed more comprehensively within the curricula. That has to be the way forward. On graduation, dentists and dental staff must have sufficient knowledge of, and reasonable experience in, the use of sedation techniques, as well as knowledge of their personal limitations, what further training they may require and when they should refer more complex cases. In that respect, two documents have recently been published by the Dental Sedation Teachers Group. One sets out guidelines for teachers while the other sets a standard for the competent graduate. Those are to be commended.
	A number of points were made concerning the ability of dentists to undertake such training--not in terms of the number of courses but in terms of their abilities as dentists to be able to take it on. Clearly, the context in which that has to be considered is so as to ensure that we establish an environment in which clinical quality flourishes. That is why we shall introduce clinical governance to dentistry through three main routes. First, we shall ensure that all dentists participate in clinical audit and peer review. Secondly, we shall increase investment in continuing professional development so that dentists committed to the NHS receive support for the 15 hours of verifiable training they will need to undertake each year to meet the GDC's recertification requirements. Thirdly, we shall implement the other measures which the GDC wishes to take to strengthen the self regulation of dentistry. If I have sufficient time, I shall return to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in relation to the GDC.
	I was asked about waiting times in dental specialties. I am glad to report to the House that, when comparing the quarter ending in June 1999 to the quarter ending in June 2000, the number of outpatients kept waiting for 13 weeks or more for treatment by the dental specialties declined by 15.2 per cent. That compares to a reduction for all medical and dental specialties of 8.3 per cent. However, we shall need to keep that under review in terms of any extra demand which is likely to be placed on hospital services.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, raised the issue of the North-West and I believe that she specifically mentioned Blackburn. I have not received any specific reports of difficulties in that area, but I am very willing to look into the matter if the noble Baroness would care to furnish me with further information.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked about the situation in Wales. I am not sure that I am allowed to say anything about Wales; indeed, I am quite sure that I am not allowed to do so. However, I understand that the president of the GDC opened a new facility for the training of undergraduates and postgraduates in conscious sedation at Cardiff Dental School. Furthermore, I take the point raised by the noble Lord as regards rural areas. That is as relevant an issue in England as it is in Wales.
	The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, asked about the study. SAAD will shortly be submitting a proposal. Officials at the department will be discussing the issue with the Royal College of Anaesthetists later this month. I hope that we shall be able to make progress as soon as possible. The noble Lord also asked about restrictions on medical practitioners. Interestingly, in the report from the CMO/CDO, the issue was referred to obliquely. Of course, the remit of the group was to look at general anaesthesia for dental treatment. It concentrated on that, but it did go on to express the hope that other procedures which carry similar levels of risk will come to have in place the same standards. If evidence is produced that other procedures carry similar levels of risk as those of general anaesthesia for dental treatment, we would consider that and make our decisions on an individual basis.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also raised the issue of relative analgesia. All I would say here is that I agree that it is the preferred method of conscious sedation for most children. As regards resources, all I would say is that the context in which we are discussing this must be the record amount of resources that this Government are putting into the National Health Service over the next four years, which in real terms will allow it to grow by a third.
	In regard to the important issue of self-regulation, the GDC has submitted a range of proposals to strengthen self-regulation. We are preparing the necessary legislation to put these improvements into effect. The GDC is also working on proposals for the investigation of complaints about private dentistry which fall short of serious professional misconduct.
	I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to an excellent debate. We should perhaps have more debates about dentistry. I hope that I have assured the House that we are very much alive to the need to ensure that appropriate training is in place for both dental practitioners and dental nurses and that we shall keep the matter under close review.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 20 [Parties to be registered in order to field candidates at elections]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 12, line 6, leave out ("party registered under this Part") and insert ("qualifying registered party").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We now return to a group of amendments relating to the separate registration of political parties in Northern Ireland, which we considered at some length on 11th May. The mood of the Committee on that occasion was that these important amendments were deserving of a further airing before the question was put.
	As I explained to the Committee on 11th May, this group of amendments is concerned with two issues: first, what constitutes a Northern Ireland party for the purpose of Clause 65. The second issue is what I shall refer to as the "Scottish Green Party" question. For the time being I shall put the second of these issues to one side and concentrate on the Northern Ireland aspects of the amendments. It is fair to say that it was these aspects which caused the Committee most difficulties when we last considered these matters. I shall also put the detail of the amendments to one side while I address the key question of why we should make special provision for Northern Ireland.
	This Bill extends throughout the United Kingdom. In an ideal world, therefore, we would not need to make special provision for Northern Ireland parties. However, like it or not, we must recognise, as the Neill committee recognised, that politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on quite the same basis as it is in Great Britain. Political developments in Northern Ireland have undoubtedly taken an important step forward since the Neill committee report was published, but there remain special factors which cannot be lightly dismissed.
	Thankfully, the level of political violence in Northern Ireland has greatly diminished since the onset of the peace process, but, as we see from time to time, it has not yet been wholly eradicated. The Neill committee heard evidence that, notwithstanding the Good Friday agreement, it would still be unsafe in Northern Ireland to disclose the names of those who had made gifts to a particular political party there. There is a very real risk, therefore, that if donations made to parties in Northern Ireland were subject to disclosure in the normal way, there would be one of two possible consequences. The first is that donors would suffer discrimination, intimidation or worse. The second and perhaps more likely consequence is that people would simply refuse to give to a political party for fear of the consequences to them personally if the fact of the donation was made known.
	It was these considerations which led the Neill committee to conclude that there should be a temporary exemption from the reporting requirements for donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland.
	The Neill committee separately considered the effect of the ban on foreign funding on parties in Northern Ireland. Here they concluded that the terms of the Good Friday agreement argued for an exception to be made to the definition of a permissible donor in order to allow a citizen of the Republic of Ireland to make a donation to a Northern Ireland political party, provided that the donor complied with the provisions of the Republic of Ireland's Electoral Act 1997.
	The Government have accepted in relation to both these recommendations that the case has been made for exempting political parties in Northern Ireland from the application of the relevant provision of Part IV of the Bill on a temporary basis. Clause 65 is the result.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, George Howarth, met with representatives of the main Northern Ireland parties earlier this year. Although opinions were divided, there was a strongly held view in some quarters that exemptions from the disclosure requirements of Part IV remain essential. Given this view, it remains the Government's current intention to exercise the order making power in Clause 65 so as to disapply the provisions of Part IV in respect of Northern Ireland parties. Amendment No. 177A to Clause 65 and the corresponding Amendment No. 189C to Schedule 6 would make it explicitly clear that an order can be made exempting Northern Ireland parties, wholly or in any specified particular, from the provisions of Part IV.
	It is intended that any order made under this clause should apply for an initial period of four years only and be reviewed thereafter. We shall, however, review the position afresh before a final decision is taken early next year on the commencement of these provisions.
	In disapplying Part IV as a whole in respect of Northern Ireland parties, I make no bones about the fact that we are not following the letter of the Neill committee recommendation 29. We have considered the recommendation very carefully but have reluctantly concluded that an extension of the definition of a permissible donor along the lines proposed--that is, to include citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the republic--is impractical.
	The Neill committee recognised that under its formula there would exist the possibility of overseas donations--for example, from the United States--reaching the Republic of Ireland, where there is no ban on foreign funding, and then being re-routed to the north by an individual or via one of the parties' offices in Dublin. The Committee fully acknowledged that it had not been able to devise anything that would prevent this, other than statutory provisions which would arguably be incompatible with the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.
	In these circumstances, extending the definition of a permissible source in the manner proposed by the Neill committee would, in practice, leave a Northern Ireland party free to accept donations from any source. We believe it preferable simply to acknowledge this fact and to legislate accordingly.
	Having concluded that the Neill committee was right to recommend special provisions for Northern Ireland parties, we need to define what constitutes a Northern Ireland party for these purposes. Clause 65(2) currently defines a Northern Ireland party as a party with one or more Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a party with one or more Members of the House of Commons elected for constituencies in Northern Ireland.
	This definition has been called into question by the Neill committee. In its comments on the draft Bill the committee raised two concerns. First, the existing definition implies that a political party which, for example, achieves only one seat in an election and loses it in the next will, in losing that seat, lose the Clause 65 protection. The second concern was that the definition placed those parties which have, so far, unsuccessfully fielded candidates at elections in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage. We fully accept these points.
	We have to be fair to all Northern Ireland parties and treat them equally. Consequently we must come up with a new definition of a Northern Ireland party. I put it to the Committee that the only equitable definition is one that embraces all parties which contest elections in Northern Ireland. This leads us inexorably to a separate register of Northern Ireland parties, and hence to this group of amendments.
	The new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 63 provides for the existing register of political parties to be replaced by two new registers--namely, the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register. Later on in the Committee stage proceedings we will come to government amendments which set out the transitional arrangements for existing registered parties. Under those arrangements a party will need to decide whether it wishes to be registered in the Great Britain register, in the Northern Ireland register, or in both. I recognise that these provisions will impose a rather uncomfortable set of arrangements on parties that organise throughout the United Kingdom. In particular, any such party will need to ensure that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland. Such a separation will not be welcome but it is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of making special provision for Northern Ireland parties. Without such separation it would be open to a party operating on a UK-wide basis to escape the ban on foreign funding by channelling donations through its Northern Ireland branches.
	It has been suggested that the proposed exemption for Northern Ireland parties is nothing more than a sop to Sinn Fein. That is quite simply false. In fact, Sinn Fein has indicated that it supports the disclosure of donations. The truth of the matter can be found in the oral evidence given to the Neill committee. During the committee's hearings in Belfast, John Stephenson of the SDLP said at paragraph 6548 of Volume 2 of the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom:
	"You should be aware that already many potential donors to political parties here do not donate due to fear. Even with the huge endorsement ... of the Good Friday Agreement, the problem with public declaration will still exist".
	Such sentiments were not confined to the nationalist community. This is what Jack Allen of the Ulster Unionist Council had to say (at paragraphs 6667 and 6717):
	"Over a number of years, because of the political situation in Northern Ireland, people did not want to be identified with political parties ... because of the risk factor in Northern Ireland ... We are happy enough to put forward those people who give us donations of £5,000 or more but it would be important for them that it was kept private or confidential to an electoral committee or something like that, rather than be made public in the press".
	This view was reinforced by Lynn Sheridan, speaking for the United Kingdom Unionist Party. In her evidence to the Neill committee she said (at paragraph 6848):
	"On the security issue, when someone was having to declare a donor and the amount, there would be problems in Northern Ireland in that people would not want to be seen".
	Nor is it the case that only Sinn Fein has benefited from funding from abroad and, in particular, from the United States. Perhaps I may again quote from the evidence given on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Council, this time by the late Josias Cunningham, who said (at paragraph 6676):
	"Taking the American example again, we have several well-heeled sympathisers. It would be very embarrassing if one of them said, 'I would like to support your election campaign or party machine generally. Here is a cheque for $10,000'. And we had to say, 'Sorry. We're not allowed to accept it'".
	I hope that the Committee will accept, having heard these extracts from the evidence given to the Neill committee, that there is no republican agenda here. What we are concerned about is the personal safety of the people of Northern Ireland who want to support democratic politics by contributing to the party of their choice. We all dearly hope that in a few years' time we shall not need to repeat this debate. But until the supporters of political parties in Northern Ireland have nothing more to fear from the appearance of their name on a list of donors than the knockabout jibes and groans that one might receive in Great Britain, I urge the Committee to back these amendments and to support Clause 65 standing part of the Bill.
	I said that I would move on from Northern Ireland parties and discuss briefly with the Committee the position of the Scottish Green Party--perhaps henceforth to be known as the "Scottish Green Party question". The Scottish Green Party is aggrieved, we believe justifiably, that under the terms of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 and the associated subordinate legislation it has been prevented registering as a political party. The Scottish Green Party is a quite separate political party from the Green Party in England and Wales. There are, no doubt, some fraternal links between the two parties but there are no constitutional links between them as is the case between, for example, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the English Liberal Democrats.
	For the limited purposes of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, the Scottish Green Party has come to a pragmatic accommodation with the Green Party in order that Scottish Green Party candidates can stand for election in Scotland under the Scottish Green Party banner. These arrangements will not, however, withstand the onset of the controls on parties' income and expenditure. We must, therefore, find an alternative solution.
	The approach we have adopted, in Amendment No. 77, is to enable a party registered in the Great Britain register to confine its registration to one or two parts of Great Britain. Thus, it would be open to the Green Party to limit its registration in England and Wales. This would then allow the Scottish Green Party to register in respect of Scotland. This aspect of these amendments was, I believe, welcomed by the Committee when they were discussed on 11th May.
	The amendments also touch on the registration of minor parties. A minor party is a party that contests only parish council elections in England or community council elections in Wales. Clause 36(2) already provides that the controls in Parts III and IV do not apply to minor parties, but this provision does not quite go far enough in disapplying provisions of the Bill in respect of such parties. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, argued persuasively on 11th May that we should go even further by not applying the restrictions on candidates' descriptions to minor parties. The noble Lord argued his point well and it is one that we are ready to accept.
	Finally, I turn to the amendments to government amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. These are quite simply wrecking amendments. They seek to undo the two main changes to the registration scheme that I have set out. The noble Lord's amendments would preserve a UK-wide register with UK-wide registration. I am surprised that the noble Lord is seeking to undo the changes to the scheme which will facilitate the registration of the Scottish Green Party. Perhaps that is not his intention, but that is certainly what would come about. In Committee on 11th May, the noble Lord said (at col. 1814) that he was "pleased to hear" that the government amendments resolved this problem. I suspect that he has not changed his view, but that would be the effect of his amendments.
	I welcome this opportunity to debate this group of amendments again. It is important that the Committee is clear about their purpose and effect. Since we last considered these issues, events have moved on in Northern Ireland. The system of devolved government has been restored. That is very much to be welcomed, but it does not, of itself, remove the need for special provisions for Northern Ireland parties. We need to ensure that those special provisions work effectively, and to that end I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The grouping of these amendments is wholly unsatisfactory. There are three totally different issues bundled up in the same group of amendments, and that allows the Minister to make the cheap jibe that I am not interested in the Scottish Green Party provision because I have tabled amendments to other parts of this section. There should be three separate groupings: one relating to concessions being made to Sinn Fein-IRA in Northern Ireland; the second relating to the whole issue of minor parties--the noble Lord Goodhart explained exactly what this was all about when we debated this issue previously, in the absence of any explanation at all from the Minister; and the third should deal with the smaller point about the Scottish Green Party.
	Of course, I welcome the provision relating to the Scottish Green Party. But why could not some effort have been made between 11th May and today to disentangle these amendments so that we were able to deal with those three issues separately? We could have spent 10 seconds on the Scottish Green Party amendments, which I would have welcomed, as, I have no doubt, would noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and that would have been that; we could have had an interesting debate on the minor parties, which we shall probably have to have later on; and we could have concentrated on Northern Ireland.
	I tried to see whether the amendments could be disentangled, but it seemed to me that the determination of the Government to keep Amendment No. 63 in its current form rather than to break it up meant that we could not disentangle the three groups of amendments. I want to express my dismay that, after an hour and a half debating the matter on the first day in Committee, no one had the presence of mind to go away and try to sort out that small technical problem. Indeed, I am so annoyed that I think that, entirely on a procedural basis, when we come to Amendment No. 63 I may seek to divide the Committee against it--because I do not believe that governments should get away with entwining two totally separate issues in one amendment.
	Later on--and it will be later on--I may wish to turn to the question of minor parties. However, for the moment, I want to talk entirely about the Northern Ireland amendments. We have had an explanation from the Minister as to why he wants these amendments. Well, at least we got quicker to the burden of the amendments that we did on the first day of Committee. After some time on that day, we actually managed to get out of the Minister the following response:
	"The question that has been asked is whether a person in the USA can give money to a Northern Ireland party. Fairly and honestly, I believe that, yes, he probably can".--[Official Report, 11/5/00; col. 1823.]
	How many caveats are there in that?
	Under this Bill, such a person will be able to give money to a Northern Ireland party and, in particular, to one Northern Ireland party. That privilege will be denied to any other citizen who lives abroad and who wishes to give a donation to a British political party. I shall return to that issue. I understand the argument that the Minister went over at some length--in fact, at greater length than the question of exemptions to foreign donations--namely, the exemption from reporting. I should like to know how many donations over £5,000 are given to Northern Ireland parties. That seems to be quite relevant. I do not know whether many are, but I wonder just how important it is. If I could clearly see the amendments that do this, I might have a great deal of sympathy with them and understand them in the present climate--although I should like to take advice.
	When it comes to the question of the exemption for people from abroad donating to Northern Ireland parties, we are in a different ball game. The Minister fairly said that the Neill committee did not recommend that Northern Ireland parties should be allowed to receive donations from abroad. That may save me from going through the report and quoting from the Neill committee in that regard. However, in relation to donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, the report said at page 77 that,
	"the definition of a 'permissible source' should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act of 1997".
	I understand the argument that Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP operate on both sides of the border and that, therefore, their affairs are intertwined, which makes it very difficult to put Chinese walls between them. However, I do not understand why that takes us in a great leap away from what the Neill committee had to say. It is especially not convincing when I read a press release put out by a Labour spokesman in this place today, stating:
	"Any disruption to business in the Lords is due to unelected Tory peers".
	We are all unelected. It is not just the Tories who are unelected: we are all unelected. Therefore, I do not know what this is about. It goes on to say that Tory Peers are,
	"delaying Bills they don't like".
	I do not particularly like this Bill, but I have not delayed it: the Government have delayed it. Indeed, some of us do not like the Freedom of Information Bill. Again, I have not delayed it. The Government have done so. It has not even had one day in Committee, despite the fact that the Second Reading was on Maundy Thursday, which is so long ago that I have forgotten the actual date. I mean Maundy Thursday of this year, not of last year. But perhaps we will not get to it until I can say that the Second Reading was on Maundy Thursday last year--who knows! I really object to that.
	The press release goes on:
	"The Tories are completely wrong to play politics with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The provisions in this Bill are in line with Lord Neill's recommendations".
	Yet the two major amendments we have dealt with today are not in line with his recommendations. I know that the Minister is not responsible for that, but perhaps he can rap the knuckles of those who were responsible and tell them that all they do by putting out such misinformation is cause him even more trouble in Committee than might otherwise be the case. Let us return to Neill. We are agreed that the Government have gone far beyond what the Neill committee recommended. It merely said that something must be done about the Republic. The Government have gone beyond that and are saying that Northern Ireland parties are something special. They can receive money from abroad, but the iniquitous Liberal Democrats--I suppose the more iniquitous Tories--the blessed Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists, although they are not blessed in the view of the Government, the Welsh Nationalists and the Scottish Greens cannot receive any money from abroad. Indeed, somehow or other, there is something wrong with mainland political parties that is right with the Northern Ireland parties. The noble Lord knows that it is the other way round. There is something wrong with one or two Northern Ireland parties but that is not the case with the majority of parties in this country.
	In the Explanatory Notes the Government say--this is what annoys me, especially as regards that press release--that the proposals for Northern Ireland are,
	"along the lines recommended in the Neill Committee report".
	I am sorry to say that they are not, unless one extends the definition of "along the lines" very considerably. Interestingly enough, in a letter of 23rd June to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Minister said:
	"We have always had some difficulty with these recommendations".
	They might have brought that to bear on the Explanatory Notes.
	The Government have deviated from Neill and have done so in a way that, frankly, makes many of us very suspicious about the reason why. What have they got in return? Indeed, have they got anything in return? Have they got some weapons decommissioning? I do not know. I could understand making this exception if they had received something in return. But I do not suppose that the Minister will tell me whether they have received anything in return. It might help his argument if that were the case. I took note of the fact that he said there would be a review next year before deciding on the issue. Does the Minister expect something to change between now and the beginning of next year? Perhaps he can help me on that point when he concludes the debate.
	I turn to the idea of following Neill and saying that citizens of the Republic are excluded. If the Government wished to do so, I would say that citizens of the Republic could donate to anyone's political party. That would seem reasonable. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was kind enough to help me by referring to Section 2(1) of the Ireland Act 1949, which says that,
	"notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of [Her] Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom".
	That is a good start. We could use that provision.
	I find the idea that there is leakage hard to understand. If it is possible that someone abroad who is not allowed to donate to a United Kingdom party can slip money into the Republic of Ireland which is subsequently passed on to a UK party, surely it would be equally possible for that donor to slip money to an elector in England or Scotland who could then pass that money to a political party claiming that it was his own. If the loophole exists as far as concerns the Republic, then it exists in exactly the same way as regards Great Britain.
	Perhaps the Minister can explain what would stop me, for example, taking a large donation from a chum of mine in America, if I had such a rich friend, would that I had--

Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that there is a significant difference here; namely, that if there was a suspicion--perhaps a well-founded suspicion--that he was accepting donations in this country from supporters in the US, it would be possible for the authorities in this country to get the police to investigate such an allegation? The problem in the Republic of Ireland would be that the only authorities which could investigate such a matter would be the Garda and that might prove to be a less effective form of investigation.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I understand the Republic of Ireland to be a friendly country, I do not see why it would be so difficult for an investigation to be undertaken. If there was doubt, and even if it could not be proved, it seems to me that the electoral commission could instruct the political party not to take the donation unless it could prove to the commission that it was a genuine donation from, for example, myself and not money that I had received from someone else. I do not accept that there is not a way round the problem. It is a good deal less damaging to the principle than the way that the Government have chosen, which is to exempt Northern Irish parties.
	The noble Lord implied that other parties in Northern Ireland were keen on the measure. I am not entirely sure how up to date he is because I have a letter of 13th October 1999 addressed to Mr Varney, the head of the Party Funding Unit at the Home Office. The letter is from David Boyd, the General Secretary of the Ulster Unionist Council. The letter states, with regard to overseas donations:
	"We are disappointed that the proposals for restrictions on donations from overseas differ in Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This is the one area in which legislation for Northern Ireland should be at least as strong as that in Great Britain. We recognise that certain highly publicised cases have led to the proposal to prohibit overseas funding to England, Scotland and Wales. However, we question the lack of balance which offers an exemption to Northern Ireland parties when the consequences of that exemption could have connotations beyond democratic politics. It is wrong that the practice will constitute a criminal offence in Britain when the same practice will allow the Republican Movement (IRA/Sinn Fein) to raise funds. It is not acceptable to argue that Northern Ireland must be treated differently because Sinn Fein are organised on an all-island basis. The same law should apply to all parties, which stand for election in the United Kingdom".
	Therefore, the Government cannot pray in aid the Ulster Unionist Party, which is the largest party on the loyalist side of the divide in Northern Ireland.
	Everyone knows what the measure seeks to do; namely, to allow Sinn Fein/IRA to continue to obtain large amounts of money from the United States. We know that it obtains that money because the political parties in Ireland must reveal large donations. The Irish Times of 17th May reveals the donations that emanate from the United States. Fianna Fail seems to do rather well in terms of donations from the United States. The Labour Party, the Green Party and Fine Gael do not do at all well; they score "blanks" in terms of declarable donations. However, Sinn Fein does extraordinarily well. Of the three declarations, two are from overseas, one from the United States and the other from Australia.
	On the previous occasion we discussed the matter, the Minister failed to address the distinction that is being made here between Northern Ireland and Scotland and Wales. I shall mention Scotland, but exactly the same is true of Wales. However, to avoid repeating myself, I shall encapsulate them both.
	In Ireland some people think that the status of Northern Ireland should be changed and that Northern Ireland should be part of the Republic. Some people in Scotland--I am not one of them--believe that the status of Scotland should be changed and that Scotland should become an independent country separate from the United Kingdom. I suspect that that belief is more prevalent today than it was two or three years ago, but that is a discussion for another day. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party advocates that policy at the ballot box and has done so for many years. While the odd nut at the edge of the nationalist movement has indulged in a little violence, the Scottish National Party itself has never been related to, connected with, or in any way supported violence.
	In the Republic of Ireland the main party advocating a link up with the South has, as we all know, close links with violence. Much of the money which has come from America may have contributed to political party funding but has also contributed to the funding of arms. We all know that is the case and there is no point in pretending otherwise. All of a sudden, the Scottish National Party will not be able to obtain money from abroad. If an American citizen of Scottish descent becomes besotted with the "old country" and thinks that we all want independence and decides to give some of his money to the Scottish National Party, he will not be allowed to do that. However, his Irish American neighbour will be allowed to do that. I just do not understand the fairness of that proposition. It is not at all fair; in fact, it constitutes a reward for violence and a penalty for being non-violent. That cannot be right. That is the situation that the Minister will achieve. I understand that he is doing so with good intent but that is what he will achieve. He really ought to rethink this whole proposition with regard to excluding the parties we are discussing.
	These amendments make Northern Ireland look quite separate from the rest of the United Kingdom by setting up a separate register. I do not know what kind of signal the noble Lord thinks that gives to the unionist community. Goodness knows, the signals it gets are all negative; hence the problems that David Trimble is experiencing. This is yet another negative signal. I strongly urge the Minister to think carefully before pursuing the measure. Even if the measure is passed, I hope that the Government will think carefully before they decide to implement it. If they say that they have not decided whether to implement the provision, but they will decide next year, is there anything in the Bill which would then remove the clauses we are discussing automatically to prevent them lingering on in the statute book? I believe that the Minister said that the Government hoped not to use the measure for more than four years. Is there a sunset clause with regard to the proposition so that at the end of four years it falls? Some such measure would certainly go some way to help to allay the fears of many of us that this is but another piece of appeasement to one particular party which, I regret to say, is bringing the peace process into severe difficulty at the present time. As I say, the Government should think carefully about this matter.
	I shall leave the minor parties point until later as I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will explain far better than I the defects of the Government's proposals in that regard.

Lord Goodhart: There seems to be a rather surprising lack of enthusiasm from other speakers in this debate. I had intended to speak a little later but there appears to be a pause and therefore I shall speak now.
	I should make clear my position. As I think most Members of the Committee know, I am a member of the Neill committee and was a member of that committee at the time it prepared its fifth report on party political funding. I do not speak from my party's Front Bench on this occasion as I have taken the view that I cannot speak or vote against proposals that were contained in the Neill committee report even if my party takes a different view--as it does on a number of issues, although not, I think, on this one. I am mainly concerned here with the position of the Neill committee.
	I can certify a number of matters. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we have too much tacked together in this group of amendments. The question of the Scottish Green Party should present no difficulties. On the question of the minor parties, I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said but it is a matter which can better be discussed on later amendments which stand in my name.
	The real question relates to Northern Ireland: the reporting of donations, and who is a permissible donor. At the centre of the group of amendments is Clause 65, which is intended to provide exemption from disclosure requirements and enable the Government to extend the list of permissible donors.
	As regards the disclosure requirement, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for allowing an exemption from that for a limited period of time. The Government having said that they intended their regulations to continue only for a period of four years, I ask them to consider providing in the Bill that any regulations made under Clause 65 would require renewal at intervals of not more than four years so that they could be reconsidered within the normal life of each parliament.
	When the Neill committee went to Belfast and talked to representatives of most of the Irish parties, although neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP, the overwhelming evidence--it was not quite unanimous--was that there was a strong case on personal security grounds for non-disclosure of substantial gifts. Also, businesses which in this country might wish to make substantial donations to a political party would find it impossible to do so in Northern Ireland because making a donation might alienate their customers or clients.
	I welcome the Government's proposal to extend the application of the special rules from those parties which are represented either in the assembly or in the UK Parliament to all parties putting forward candidates. That is necessary. There is an absolute case for equal treatment. However, the nub of the question is the extension of the list of permissible donors to enable donations to Northern Ireland parties to be made from parties in countries other than the United Kingdom.
	The Neill committee came to the conclusion that there was a strong case for extending to citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to give donations. As were virtually all the recommendations of the Neill Committee, this was a unanimous recommendation which was endorsed by the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, Mr John MacGregor. It seemed to us that the citizens of the Republic have a genuine and legitimate interest in the political situation in Northern Ireland. After all, some 40 per cent of voters in Northern Ireland vote for parties which seek the reunification of the North and South. Many of those 40 per cent are citizens of Ireland as well as of the United Kingdom. In this country, John Major, for example, recognised that, if a majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland were to vote in a referendum for reunification, that would occur.
	The situation in Scotland is entirely different. There is no proposal by the Scottish National Party that Scotland should become part of some other country. Those members of the Scottish diaspora who live in the USA and, because of their emotional and historic links with Scotland, wish to donate to the Scottish National Party seem to us to have no more justification to give to that party than they would have to give to one of the three main parties of Great Britain. We took the view, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not argue strongly against, that citizens of the Republic should be entitled to make donations to parties in Northern Ireland. We have to recognise that there are exceptional links between Northern Ireland and the South. For example, the Good Friday agreement provides for cross-border bodies.
	The question is whether the definition of permissible donors should be extended to include citizens of the Republic of Ireland, as the Neill committee proposed, knowing that that would open a loophole for donations from the USA which could be laundered through friendly members of political parties in the South, or whether, as the Government propose, the ban on foreign donors should be lifted altogether.
	The Government have taken a different view from the Neill committee and it is not for me to say that they are right to do so, but their proposals are nearer to the Neill committee's than are the Conservative amendments, which would simply apply to Northern Ireland the same rules as apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, making donations from the Republic of Ireland illegal on the grounds that citizens of the Republic were impermissible donors.
	I am not entirely happy with the Government's proposals, but they are more acceptable than those in the Conservative amendments. There is no amendment that proposes a return to the original Neill committee proposals.
	That is all that I feel able to say on the issue.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him a question. I have listened to him with interest and I agree with a lot of what he has said, but I think that he dismissed the Scottish diaspora too briefly, comparing them with the citizens of the Republic. He should address the issue of two next door neighbours in America, one a member of the Scottish diaspora and the other a member of the Irish diaspora. Why should one be allowed to donate to a political party back in the old country while the other is not?

Lord Goodhart: That is a fair question. In principle, I would not wish members of either diaspora to be able to contribute. The problem is that a ban on donations from the Irish diaspora could be achieved only by making any contributions from the Republic of Ireland impermissible. As well as being difficult to achieve in practice, that would be wrong.
	There is no equivalent problem with the Scottish diaspora. Perhaps that is the misfortune of the Scottish National Party. I accept that the SNP may well feel aggrieved that a party that has been as closely linked with violence as Sinn Fein can profit from the Irish diaspora when the SNP cannot profit from the Scottish diaspora.
	There is no perfect solution. We thought that the most important issue was that the parties in Northern Ireland should not be cut off from funding in the Republic. If that meant that it became difficult, or even virtually impossible, to block funding from outside the Republic, then that consequence, although profoundly undesirable, would be unavoidable.

Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I am very much enjoying watching him wriggling on this hook. It is a fine sight and he is wriggling extremely well. However, I should like to put one simple question to him. Why should we go out of our way to make life easier for Sinn Fein in the, I believe forlorn, hope that it might give us something in return, which it shows very little sign of doing?

Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. However, this is a perfectly fair question to ask. First, from the debate that we have had this evening, it sounds as though Sinn Fein is the only party which represents those in Northern Ireland who seek reunification. Of course, as we all know, that is untrue. It is not even the largest party. Throughout, the SDLP has renounced violence but it depends, perhaps not to the extent that Sinn Fein does but to a considerable extent, on funding from the Republic. I believe that, again, it is a perfectly legitimate point that what has been yielded so far by Sinn Fein is inadequate and there is not a very encouraging prospect that it will yield more.
	Nevertheless, we are looking at what will happen in the longer term and I do not believe that it would be right to ban the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland by citizens in the South simply on the basis that one of the two main parties seeking reunification has been guilty of extremely serious acts of violence for many years.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wish to make two points. First, a cardinal part of the Belfast agreement is that the country chose by a majority to stay in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why it should be treated differently from any other part of the United Kingdom. That sends a message that we already accept that it is floating off into the sea, and I suspect that some people would like to give it a hearty push.
	Secondly, I do not understand why we cannot insist that foreign donors' names will be made public. I take the point that it is perfectly possible for them to give money through the Republic. However, there is no reason why donors in the Republic should not be named. They are not at risk and Mr Galvin in New York is not at risk. I am wholly unimpressed by the idea that those poor creatures who give money might be at risk because they have done so.
	Surely we should be considering the following broad points: first, that we are talking about a part of the United Kingdom; secondly, that we are undoubtedly giving comfort to the enemies of that part of the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, that there is absolutely no reason that I can see why the identity of foreign donors should be kept secret. It is very interesting that we seem to be so concerned about protecting them. Let us suppose that Mr Galvin--that splendid character who appeared in Dundalk the day after Omagh with money for the Real IRA--sends money to the Republic. Surely the identity of the person to whom he sends it will give us--and not only us but the world at large--a clue as to where the money came from.
	Therefore, I accept the fact that the Republic is in a particular situation and in a particular relationship to Nationalists. However, I do not accept that there is any reason whatever to protect the identity of major foreign donors from abroad; nor do I accept that we should make special rules for a part of the United Kingdom which North and South accepted would be so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a rather better-tempered debate than that which we had on 11th May and I am grateful for the generally constructive tone which has been adopted since that time.
	I struggle to see that we can make progress with this other than in the way which the Government have set out. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that we should think very seriously about the position that we have set out in relation to Northern Ireland. I thought about it very seriously before 11th May and have been doing so ever since. As I believe I made plain then--and perhaps this was part of my discomfort--no one says that this is a perfect solution to the problems which undoubtedly remain with politics in Northern Ireland.
	There is one allegation which I must answer and refute; that is, that somehow the arrangements that we have set out in these amendments are a form of concession to Sinn Fein. They are not. That is not the intention behind what the Government are attempting to achieve.
	We are trying to deal in a practical way with a very difficult set of problems. The close relationship in politics between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been fairly acknowledged and admitted on all sides of the Committee. That situation was acknowledged in the Neill report to the point that it was accepted that it seemed reasonable, or at least not unreasonable, that people living in the Republic of Ireland should be able to donate to political parties that operate across the boundary and which operate within Northern Ireland itself.
	That is, perhaps, the kernel of the problem. That is why it is so difficult for us somehow hermetically to seal the whole situation and prevent donations coming into Northern Ireland from other parts of the world. I believe that that is an insurmountable problem in the current situation. It is for that reason that we have adopted the course we have.
	The other point which is extremely important is that, of all of the parties which are concerned in the politics of that part of the United Kingdom, the only party which says that it favours disclosure is Sinn Fein. All the other parties have said that disclosure would place them, their members, the donors and potential donors in a position of considerable risk. That places a very large question mark over our ability to apply to Northern Ireland the rigorous regime which we intend to have in place for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an extremely important issue. That is why I went as carefully over the testimonies as I did.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked me whether there is a sunset clause; there is not. If no order is in force under Clause 65, there would still be a separate register for Northern Ireland but Northern Ireland parties would be subject to the totality of the controls on donations. The changes to the register will work whether or not an order is in force.
	I hope that I made plain in my comments in opening this debate that we continue, and will continue, to review matters in relation to Northern Ireland. We shall certainly want to review them within four years. I listened very carefully to the extremely constructive contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall give very careful consideration to the points that he made. They were very constructive indeed.
	I do not want to see us in government rewarding acts of violence in any way, shape or form. I do not see, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does, that somehow, we have come up with a set of arrangements which supports, as it were, the approach adopted by Sinn Fein in the past. That is not what we are intending to do.
	This is a difficult problem, not an easy one to solve. If there were easy solutions to hand, I am confident we would have found them thus far. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, acknowledged, I have tried to set out the position in some length. I believe that that position is the best we can do in the circumstances. It is workable, and we shall have constantly to review it. Obviously, we shall continue to listen to other points of view so that we get it right. I hope that our amendments will be accepted by the Committee.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have dealt with the amendments in this group which concern Ireland. We have still to deal with the minor party, to which I shall turn in a moment.
	The Minister said that this was a better tempered debate. Perhaps I may say that that is because he has come clean at the start and has not had to have things dragged out, like the dentists whom your Lordships discussed during the dinner break. He has admitted what this is about. I do not believe that the Minister finds it in the least surprising that Sinn Fein does not favour disclosure, whereas all the other parties do. There is a self-evident truth there which, if the Minister does not understand it, makes me even more depressed about the Government's reading of the situation in Northern Ireland.
	The other political parties in Northern Ireland--I quoted the Ulster Unionists--think that foreign donations should be stopped.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I misheard him. I thought I had made it plain that the other parties in Northern Ireland do not favour disclosure, and that it was Sinn Fein that favoured it. Does the noble Lord accept the point?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course I accept the point. I understand why Sinn Fein does not favour disclosure--

Noble Lords: Does favour disclosure!

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise; does favour disclosure. However, if the Minister does not understand why Sinn Fein favours disclosure, he lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land. Everybody else in the Chamber will know why Sinn Fein wants to see disclosure. If I was slightly mixed up, I apologise. However, the point is that Sinn Fein will not want to stop donations from abroad. As I indicated when I quoted the Ulster Unionists, the other political parties in Northern Ireland are content to have donations from abroad stopped. They have no problem with that. I believe that the SDLP will be a very small player in terms of receiving donations from the United States.
	My noble friend suggested that perhaps the Government might consider a half-way house. Why should not donations from people abroad be made public? I do not see any problem with that. They are coming to only one political party. Therefore, why should we not know? We know what happens in the Republic. I have a press cutting here. If I wanted to spend time, I could read out who Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein receive money from. However, the information on Sinn Fein is rather easier to read out: the Friends of Sinn Fein in the USA (Park Road, New York) contributed £3,700 and $117,000. The Friends of Sinn Fein in Australia are also mentioned.
	Perhaps between now and Report the Minister could consider the question of disclosure of donations from abroad of over £5,000. That might go some way towards helping us with our difficulty with this. However, I do not think it would go very far.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at least attempted to address my question regarding the Scottish National Party. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that it was a good attempt but it did not satisfy me. The Minister has always ignored this real point. Why should an Irish American be able to pay money to Sinn Fein/IRA when his next-door neighbour cannot pay any money to his old country party, the SNP? I fail to understand how the Government can justify that. Indeed, they do not attempt to justify it. The "justification" is in the violent nature of Sinn Fein and the deal they are doing to try to get it on side. However, I can see that I shall not make progress tonight, so we shall have to consider what to do on this issue on Report.
	I turn to Amendment No. 63 and to the amendments concerning minor parties. I particularly want to ask the Government about Amendments Nos. 132 and 93. I do not think that the Minister went into great detail on minor parties, which is a pity. We shall shortly deal with the principle, but I should like to deal now with a technical point with regard to those two amendments.
	Amendment No. 132 provides that the restrictions on accepting donations will not apply to minor parties; that is, to those that only contest parish council elections. Let us take an unscrupulous and devious politician--none in your Lordships' Chamber of course but there may be some outside--who creates and registers a minor party, pledging with the utmost sincerity to the electoral commission that it will only contest parish elections. Then, using the exemptions in Amendment No. 132, it takes large sums of money from abroad and sources of funding that may be denied to the main political parties.
	What is there then to stop that politician, having taken all that foreign cash, from amending that party's registration to allow it to contest national elections? He would be allowed to do so under new subsection (7) of Amendment No. 93, and there would be no reason for the commission to refuse such an application, not only because there would be no record of the foreign donations, but even if there were there would be no grounds under the provisions in those amendments for the electoral commission to refuse to allow registration.
	The Minister may say that that is far-fetched; but that is not an impossible scenario. The Minister being entirely an innocent abroad of course will not have seen that. But if I can devise such a scenario without too much trouble, then I suspect that others, less scrupulous than myself, might not only devise it, but might also use it. That could drive a coach and horses through the ban on foreign funding.
	If that analysis is correct, then a flaw exists in this provision which I suggest the Government ought to consider before we finish with this Bill. The Minister may tell me I am wrong or that I have misread the amendments and interrelated them wrongly. If so, I shall be happy to accept his assurance. If not, perhaps between now and Report he will consider the issue and we can return to it, if necessary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not confident that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the reassurance in the terms he seeks. However, I shall take away the point and consider it as he asks. My reading of the amendment does not suggest the construction that the noble Lord puts on it. But I want to be certain that that is the case. The noble Lord is being fair in suggesting that we give him an assurance before or on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 12, line 9, after ("a") insert ("qualifying").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 12, line 10, at end insert--
	("(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a party (other than a minor party) is a "qualifying registered party" in relation to a relevant election if--
	(a) the constituency, local government area or electoral region in which the election is held--
	(i) is in England, Scotland or Wales, or
	(ii) is the electoral region of Scotland or Wales,
	and the party was, on the last day for publication of notice of the election, registered in respect of that part of Great Britain in the Great Britain register maintained by the Commission under section (The new registers), or
	(b) the constituency, district electoral area or electoral region in which the election is held--
	(i) is in Northern Ireland, or
	(ii) is the electoral region of Northern Ireland,
	and the party was, on that day, registered in the Northern Ireland register maintained by the Commission under that section.
	(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1) a minor party is a "qualifying registered party" in relation to a relevant election if--
	(a) the election is a parish or community election; and
	(b) the party was, on the last day for publication of notice of the election, registered in the Great Britain register in respect of the part of Great Britain in which the election is held.").
	[Amendments Nos. 58A to 58H, as amendments to Amendment No. 58, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 58 agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 12, line 14, at end insert--
	("(ii) where the candidate is the Speaker of the House of Commons seeking re-election, "The Speaker seeking re-election"; or").

Lord Bach: On behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 59 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111. I hope to address the Committee at short length on this matter.
	As I shall explain at greater length when we come to opposition Amendment No. 60, the purpose of Clause 20 is to bring all organisations which put up candidates at an election within the controls on parties' income and expenditure. To achieve that end it prevents candidates using any description other than that of "Independent", unless they are standing on behalf of a registered party.
	Madam Speaker pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Commons has traditionally used the description, "The Speaker seeking re-election". The purpose of Clause 20 would not be undermined by allowing the holder of that office to continue to use such a description. Amendment No. 59 effects that simple modification. Amendment No. 111 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 34.
	Although, as the Committee will know well, Madam Speaker has announced her intention to resign her seat later this year and will not therefore need to avail herself of the position, we believe that it should be open to her successors to make use of such a description on the ballot paper. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor: The amendment is extraordinary because it exemplifies the muddle which the Bill was in when it went through the Commons. It went through all its stages in the other place but no one realised that there was a problem with the re-election of the Speaker. It was not picked up until the Bill came to this House. That shows how rushed and ill-thought-out were some of its arrangements. I do not want to press the point and obviously we support the amendments, but it is surprising that the Government never thought of them previously.

Lord Bach: One can take one of two views: either that taken by the noble Viscount or that which suggests this House is a revising Chamber and that it does its job when it raises such points.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 12, line 15, at end insert (", or
	(c) the description of the candidate given in his nomination paper includes the word "Independent" and no more than five other words which do not contravene the restrictions laid down in section 25(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f)").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Bill proposes that a person standing as an independent candidate is allowed to use only the word "independent". That description is extraordinarily narrow and most unfair on such people. I do not believe for one minute that the electorate become confused over Labour candidates and independent Labour candidates, or Conservative candidates and independent Conservative candidates. I do not believe that the electorate become confused at all. The issue is clear. I understand that certain playing around with names may confuse the electorate but I do not believe that adding words such as "Conservative" or "Labour" to the word "independent" confuses the electorate one little bit.
	Most people who stand as independent candidates are not widely known and it is not fair that they should be restricted to only the word "independent". Some independent candidates need no other description. That was certainly the case with Dennis Canavan when he stood as an independent candidate for the Scottish Parliament and so thoroughly trounced the Labour candidate. And Mr Canavan deservedly trounced the Labour candidate because of the appalling way in which he was treated by the Labour Party. He was not even allowed back in and now he is to precipitate a by-election. I would advise Members opposite not to put their shirts on at the bookies that their party will hold on to the seat. I believe that many Labour voters in that constituency are still aggrieved by the way their party behaved towards Dennis Canavan.
	He did not need to explain what he was about; "independent" was enough. He was extraordinarily well known and popular, as the final election results showed. However, most independent candidates are not. They may be being difficult, rebelling against their party or in disagreement but I do not see why their description should be narrowed down to only the word "independent". It is part and parcel of the Government's control freakery and it seems to me to inhibit the freedom of the individual. I believe that, provided the title that is used is clear, no confusion is caused. "Independent Conservative" or "Independent Labour" is perfectly clear and understood by the electorate and I see no reason for the Government to retain the restriction. In order to be fair to those people who want to exercise their democratic rights and stand for Parliament the Government should accept my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Not only is it a question of the right of people to stand as candidates, it is the right of the electorate to have an indication of what they are standing for. There should be on the ballot paper a brief indication of the kind of independent a particular animal is. I believe that the proposal that they should be described only as "independent" is bad and I oppose it.

Lord Rennard: I understand the legitimate concern of the Government in this matter, but perhaps there is an alternative way to address the problem. For example, 600 candidates who stand in a general election as independents may all have the description "Independent Against Europe". Effectively, those candidates are acting as a political party without any of the constraints imposed in this Bill.
	I too am concerned that someone who stands as a genuine independent will be denied the opportunity to give himself an adequate description. There must be some means by which candidates who stand as independents cannot circumvent the provisions of the Bill but are allowed more than the very basic description "independent". There are some parts of the country where it is still not uncommon to find two or three independent candidates standing in local elections. Some description on the ballot paper may be necessary to enable electors to distinguish between particular platforms. Currently, there is provision in electoral law to prevent candidates in local elections from pretending to stand independently of one another in order to circumvent spending limits imposed in council elections.
	Where there is a three-member ward in local council elections, three candidates from one party can spend double the normal election expenses limit. That applies to one candidate who stands in that ward. However, candidates are not allowed to have triple the normal election expenses limit. Each candidate can potentially pretend to stand as an independent and, therefore, claim three times the normal limit. However, the law says that, if candidates have a common agent or are deemed to be campaigning together on a common platform, they are to be treated as common candidates and cannot have three times the normal election expenses limit. One wonders whether some provision can be made to avoid the possibility of independent candidates ganging up and circumventing the legislation. If they behave as a party they should be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Will the Government give this further consideration before adopting a fairly draconian measure which prevents someone from standing as, say, an independent in support of the local bypass, or some other such description?

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I apologise to my noble friend for failing to give him notice that I intended to raise one small query. I very much agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and disagree with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, about the use of a semi-political description; that is, "Independent Labour" or "Independent Conservative". I am a little surprised that the noble Lord's own party has not told him that at times it causes confusion and is not a satisfactory method. Nor do I believe it right that people should identify their names by what they believe in, because that is to put over a political message with their description, which they can do in other ways.
	My query about "independent" is that it has been known--it may happen again--for people to use the names of others. Therefore, one may have Joe Bloggs Independent fighting Joe Bloggs Independent. I should like to know whether there is some way to ensure that individuals are distinguished perhaps by occupation and certainly not by political persuasion.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I was not a Member of this House on 3rd April when the Bill was given its Second Reading and so did not have the privilege of participating then. However, I have read with care the report of that debate in Hansard. I note how many noble Lords reflected on the changes involved in moving from what might appear to be unobjectionable, and perhaps desirable, strategic objectives to their practical implications on the ground. In a way, it is the difference between viewing topography in an aircraft at 20,000 feet and walking across it on the ground. A good part of Clause 22 as currently drafted contains a classic example of that particular danger, and for that reason I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
	The strategy to reinvigorate local democracy is entirely praiseworthy, but the practical tactic of wiping out all small parties unless they call themselves "independent" or register is dead against the practical implications of that objective at constituency level.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider the case of Mr Bill Boaks and tell me how he would fare under the clause as presently drafted. Twenty-four years ago I was a candidate in a by-election in Walsall North. It was a by-election that had a certain high profile because the sitting Member had disappeared in Miami and reappeared in Australia. A considerable number of candidates put themselves forward. Among them was a Mr Bill Boaks. He stood as an "Air and Road Safety" candidate. His policy was to segregate motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. That is a very worthy objective, if a little narrow in focus for someone seeking a parliamentary career.
	Neither that objective nor his campaigning methods carried any great danger to the democratic process. His campaigning methods mostly consisted of climbing inside a large cardboard box, on the outside of which were painted his slogans, renting a bicycle and slowly cycling around the constituency. It cannot be said that he obtained great public support. I think that 30 votes were cast in his favour. Perhaps Mr Boaks was what one might call a one club golfer. But he was not sexist; he was not racist; he was not ageist; he was not any other "ist". He was in effect a slightly eccentric elderly gentleman.
	As presently drafted, Clause 20(2) will bring an end to Mr Boaks and his kind. To stand as an independent is not the same kind of thing, because part of Mr Boaks's description was his policy. It seems a strange way to reinvigorate local democracy by preventing the Mr Boakses of the world from participating.
	When the Minister replies, he may say that Mr Boaks can register his party. I hope he will not say that because that would show conclusively that the Minister is at 20,000 feet and not on the ground. The kind of person that Mr Boaks was will never be able to cope with the bureaucracy, form-filling or indeed the cost of complying with the commission. Therefore, if the purpose of Clause 20(2) is to reinvigorate democracy, it will have the reverse effect of making politics the preserve of the professional.
	I venture the thought that politics are too important to be left entirely to the professionals. Candidates like Mr Boaks perform two valuable services. Professionals take their politics very seriously. That is quite right and proper. But Mr Boaks reminds professional politicians of the transitory nature of their work. He performs a function not dissimilar to that of the medieval jester who could tell the king home truths that others in the court were frightened to tell him. He also reminds our countrymen that it is possible for any man or woman with a cause, however local, in which they believe passionately, to put it before their fellow citizens with the minimum level of bureaucracy and administration. In so doing, they perform an invaluable and reinvigorating role in our local democracy. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment that my noble friend has moved.

Lord Norton of Louth: I also rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I do so briefly because the point I wish to make has been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. My noble friend in moving the amendment has stressed the need to be fair to candidates. But I think the noble Lord made the more important point that one should be looking at the issue from the perspective of the electors. Therefore, while there is a need for regulation, one should not regulate in such a way that it unduly limits the amount of information available to the elector. One should put the elector first in considering that. It also relates to a later amendment. We should not consider the matter from the perspective of the candidate--however important that clearly is--but from the point of view of electors and we should make sure that they have enough information on which to make an informed judgment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that this issue would raise such concerns and I have not been disappointed. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made his usual heartfelt plea--I think it was heartfelt--on behalf of independent candidates so that they might continue to have some description of themselves against their name on the ballot paper. I entirely agree that the politics of this country should not be the preserve of registered parties. That point was amply made by a number of noble Lords. I am sure that there will continue to be, under the provisions of the Bill, a role for the genuine independents--the Bill Boakses of this world.
	The purpose of Clause 20 is to bring all organisations which put up candidates at an election within the controls on parties' income and expenditure. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I have to say that Amendment No. 60 would serve to undermine that desirable objective. The key identifying feature of a political party is that it puts up candidates for election under a common banner. We know that a Labour candidate in London is part of the same party as a Labour candidate in Brighton. If the amendments were accepted, who is to say that an "Independent Against Europe" candidate standing in one constituency is not in some form of an alliance with a similarly described candidate standing in another? Indeed, the "Independent Against Europe Party" could easily field candidates across the country. Under these amendments, it could secure all of the advantages of having that description on the ballot paper but attract none of the controls on parties' income and expenditure set out in Parts III to V of the Bill.
	If that seems fanciful, one has only to take a look at the list of existing registered parties.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to follow the noble Lord's argument. If in every constituency, or jolly nearly every constituency, someone wearing the title "Independent Against Europe" came forward and was nominated, is the noble Lord telling me that that would not breach the law that he is beginning to set out in this Bill and that somehow the electoral commission would not be able to say, "We think this is a political party"? If he is telling me that, what is to prevent one of the other parties putting its name on the ballot paper and trying to pretend that it is not a political party? What is to stop it breaking itself up into individual constituency organisations? I am a little puzzled that an organisation could circumvent the rules as readily as the noble Lord is suggesting.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was describing what would be the position if the noble Lord's amendment were successful. If it were successful, the so-called "Independent Against Europe" candidate in each and every constituency would be able completely to circumvent the regulations.
	If that seems fanciful, let us look at the list of existing registered parties. Among the parties currently registered are the Christian Independent Alliance, the Independent Alliance, the Morecambe Bay Independents, the Newham Independents Association, and the North Devon Independent Group. I know nothing of those parties, but from their names the final three at least are probably residents' groups. Although they may put up candidates who describe themselves as independents, they clearly act as a coherent group showing a common set of values and pursuing broadly similar policies and should therefore be regarded quite properly as political parties.
	I do not pretend that we have put this provision into the Bill without a single qualm or without recognising its consequences for a number of individuals and perhaps--who knows?--for their electoral prospects. If a person standing as someone independent of any political party cannot describe in a few words the main point that he intends to pursue if elected, that is undeniably a loss. Some people might, however, think that it is not a very large loss. The nomination form and the ballot paper are places for the candidates to identify themselves, not to expound their policies. A candidate has already to have at least two supporters to back his nomination, and if they feel strongly that he wants a description against his name, it is open to them to form a new party.
	In any event, if this provision does impose some costs, it is a price worth paying. We cannot contemplate a situation in which two or more candidates are in effect operating as a group, but are able to avoid the need to register. The amendment as drafted would drive a coach and horses through the scheme set out in the Bill.
	Before I sit down, I shall deal in turn with the points that were raised in our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, thought that he had designed a simple answer to the problem. I listened to his comments and I agree that his proposal sounded simple enough. However, a substitute would prove to be an onerous and contentious procedure to meet a simple rule. It would require an extremely detailed set of provisions to be added to the Bill, thus introducing even more complexity. There lies the problem: this matter is not as simple as perhaps the noble Lord first thought. The question of whether people comprise a group is difficult to disentangle.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made a valiant plea on behalf of the Bill Boaks of this world. I have some sympathy with his point of view; I can well remember many selections where Bill Boaks was the candidate. However, it is the duty of the candidate to explain his platform to the electorate. He should not be able to rely on a candidate's description, a point I made plain earlier. If we are to have an informed democracy, then candidates--however lacking they may be in professionalism--have a duty to explain clearly themselves, their policies and why people should vote for them other than on the ballot paper.
	My noble friend Lady Gould raised an important point. Candidates with the same first and family names can be distinguished by their second, third or even fourth names and by their addresses. That is already provided for in current electoral law. If candidates wish to use a description, it is open to them to register as a political party and to comply with the provisions of the Bill.
	I recognise that this may seem somewhat heavy handed, but in order to ensure that the scheme works effectively in its totality, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment. As I said earlier, it would drive a coach and horses through the scheme as it has been set out in the Bill. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Desirable though this may be in the Minister's view, does he accept that this will mean that the bigger political parties will inevitably enjoy an inbuilt advantage over local individuals who, because they lack resources, wish to use their slogan as a part of their policy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer to the noble Lord's question is that only time will tell. The bigger political parties already have such an advantage.

Lord Rennard: Before the Minister sits down, would he at least undertake to look a little further into this issue? This system does work in local government and on a number of occasions we have been able to prevent candidates from abusing the system. We on these Benches will find it rather hard to deny independent candidates the right to construct a short description. Perhaps the Minister could agree to examine this problem a little more deeply and thus come up with a solution that would avoid the problem which concerns us all.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always try to be as helpful as I can, and not only to the Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships' House. I shall be happy to explore the matter a little further without making a commitment. As I hinted in my response, designing a system that would accommodate the noble Lord's proposal would result in a method that was perhaps rather more cumbersome and bureaucratic than would be desirable. Furthermore, it would not help the cause of those independents who seek a more expansive use of the title.

Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble Lord finally sits down, perhaps I may put one further point to him. When arguing against my noble friend's amendment, the Minister said that candidates may call themselves "Independent" against X or Y and that several candidates might come forward under that label, thus forming a de facto grouping. However, as I read it, could not those same candidates call themselves "Independent", omit any description on the ballot paper and yet still campaign against X or Y so that they would become more hidden under the existing clause than would be the case if they were allowed to expand the description? Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about this.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is quite likely that a number of candidates, whether or not they use "Independent", may jointly campaign, or separately campaign and have a joint effect, on a particular issue. That is perfectly possible. It is perfectly possible at the moment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has not been a satisfactory debate. It is a contradiction for the Minister to say that he wants an informed democracy and yet have a closed mind so far as concerns the electorate being informed on the ballot paper. I chortled when he complained that perhaps the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was cumbersome and bureaucratic. The whole Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic; another little bit will not make any great difference.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I readily admit that the Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: What an admission! I was not even trying to catch that particular fish.
	I remain unhappy about this. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made a very good point. If the independents against Europe all decide to stand and put "Independent" on their ballot papers but "Independent against Europe" on their leaflets and so on, will they be caught by the provisions of the Bill or will they get away with it? That is what the Minister seemed to be saying was the defence against allowing independents to have five names. If independents do not put that on their ballot paper but put it on their literature, what will happen to them?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Obviously, within the bounds of legislation restricting what people can say in writing and going along with the usual formats and so on, when people enter into an election, whatever their party, they are entitled to campaign on the subjects they find most important to them or their particular party, or even if they are not a party at all.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If they are not a party at all and put "Independent" on the ballot paper but issue leaflets saying that they are independents against the euro, what is the difference between that and allowing them to put it on the ballot paper if they continue to be "not a party at all" and they are not caught by the legislation? I am now extraordinarily puzzled, a condition I find quite usual when it comes to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, explaining matters to me.
	I am tempted to divide the Committee. I earnestly hope that the Government will listen to the suggestions from their allies on the Liberal Democrat Benches and give this matter a little more thought. Perhaps they will think about the trap they have sprung on themselves. If a group of people--maybe 600 in all--decide to act together as the "Independents against the euro" but put down only "Independent" on their ballot papers, I think we are entitled to know whether they will be caught by the Bill as it stands. If they are not caught by the Bill as it stands, and the noble Lord is going to do nothing about it, I see no reason why they should not put "Independent against the euro" on their ballot papers.
	The noble Lord used the words "an informed democracy". Democracy is not for the sake of the political parties but for the sake of the electorate. One of the things the electorate can do if they wish--if they are daft enough to want to do it--is to stand as an independent for or against something or other. Even if they are disaffected with our great parties and want to stand as an Independent Liberal or an Independent Tory, why should they not do that? It is their right. If you begin to take away that right, you are starting down a very slippery road--a road I am not happy about.
	We will return to this issue at Report stage. I hope that by then the Minister will have given some thought to the issues that have arisen, which he has been totally unable to answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 12, line 23, after ("elections") insert ("other than elections to a local authority in England or Wales which is not a principal authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972").

Lord Goodhart: In moving Amendment No. 61, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. I can be quite brief because the Government have made sympathetic noises. I raised this issue on the first day of the Committee stage because it seemed to me that this was an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy.
	The Government's definition of a party that needs registration is one that puts up candidates at a "relevant election", and relevant elections include local government elections. Local government elections include not only those for county and district councils and unitary authorities but also for town councils, parish councils and, in Wales, community councils.
	The Government's proposals as they stood in the Bill when it originally came before this place were that any group of people who wished to put up a slate in any local election, including a parish election, should have to register as a political party in order to be able to do so. If they wished to stand only in parish or community elections, they would be considered a minor party and would be exempted from a number of the obligations of other registered parties. However, they would still have to register, and no doubt pay fees for registration; they would have to have a leader, a nominating officer, a treasurer and so on. That seemed quite unnecessary in the case of, let us say, a group who wished to stand in a parish election where the great issue was whether or not there should be a new village hall for the parish and who wished to stand under the name of, let us say, "Ambridge Residents Against the Village Hall".
	This problem could be dealt with quite simply by restricting the definition of "relevant elections" to elections to principal local authorities--that is, district and county councils and unitary authorities or metropolitan boroughs--and by excluding parish councils and community councils, and, according to my amendment, town councils as well. I agree that town councils are perhaps a borderline case. Certainly, in the constituency that I fought in 1992, Oxford West and Abingdon, there is an Abingdon town council which is fought by political parties, but parish and community councils are by and large not.
	It seemed to me that one could do this quite easily, simply by excluding parish and community councils from the definition so that they would not have to register. All that would be necessary would be to make regulations which would enable the returning officer to refuse to accept nominations of candidates from a slate who were proposing to give themselves a description which could be confusing in relation to another political party, or whose name was more than six words long, obscene, or whatever the problem might be.
	I understand that the Government recognise that they have gone further than is necessary in this case. I am not entirely sure what their proposals are. When they are put down for consideration on Report, I shall examine them with great interest. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agree with the noble Lord. I shall not make a long speech; I shall not read out all my briefing. I simply say that I was persuaded by the noble Lord's argument last time round, and we think that this is a real issue. If the noble Lord is happy to withdraw his amendment this evening, I shall undertake to bring forward our own amendments on Report so that we can disapply Clause 20 in relation to parish and community councils.
	I do not think that we can do the same for town councils. The noble Lord explained the reason. But we think there is a very good point there and I am more than happy to make the concession and bring back a proposal which we can no doubt discuss and agree with the noble Lord through the usual channels.

Viscount Astor: I had intended to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I had a feeling that the Minister might be sympathetic towards the amendment so I listened to his response. We sympathise with the noble Lord and agree with much of what he said. However, if the Minister was sympathetic and agreed to this on 11th May of this year, I am rather surprised that he did not use the summer months to add one small amendment to the 96 pages of amendments that he has tabled this evening.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer to that is that I have been rather busy with other amendments.

Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 61A to 62 not moved.]
	Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 63:
	After Clause 20, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("The registers of political parties
	:TITLE3:THE NEW REGISTERS
	.--(1) In place of the register of political parties maintained by the registrar of companies under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, there shall be the new registers of political parties mentioned in subsection (2) which--
	(a) shall be maintained by the Commission, and
	(b) (subject to the provisions of this section) shall be so maintained in such form as the Commission may determine.
	(2) The new registers of political parties are--
	(a) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in one or more of England, Scotland and Wales (referred to in this Act as "the Great Britain register"); and
	(b) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in Northern Ireland (referred to in this Act as "the Northern Ireland register").
	(3) Each party registered in the Great Britain register shall be so registered in respect of one or more of England, Scotland and Wales; and the entry for each party so registered shall be marked so as to indicate--
	(a) the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered; and
	(b) if the party is a minor party, that it is such a party.
	(4) A party may be registered under this Part in both of the new registers, but where a party is so registered--
	(a) the party as registered in the Great Britain register, and
	(b) the party as registered in the Northern Ireland register,
	shall constitute two separate registered parties.
	(5) In such a case--
	(a) the party shall for the purposes of this Act be so organised and administered as to secure that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland;
	(b) the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, shall accordingly constitute for those purposes the financial affairs of the party as registered in the Great Britain register or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland register; and
	(c) any application for the registration of a party in accordance with subsection (4) shall similarly be made and determined by reference to the party's organisation and activities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any property, rights and liabilities to which the registrar of companies is entitled or subject in connection with his functions under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998; and an order under this subsection may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: had given notice of his intention to move, as amendments to Amendment No. 63, Amendments Nos. 63A to 63J:
	Line 5, leave out ("registers") and insert ("register").
	Line 10, leave out ("registers") and insert ("register").
	Line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
	Line 11, leave out from ("elections") to end of line 16 and insert ("as defined in section 20(3).").
	Leave out lines 17 and 18.
	Line 19, leave out ("so registered") and insert ("registered in the register").
	Line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
	Line 23, leave out subsection (4).
	Line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert ("parties registered as minor parties shall only be authorised to nominate candidates for elections as defined under section 20(3).").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not intend to move any of these amendments because they all deal with the Irish situation. When I indicated earlier that I was irritated by the way that the Government had absolutely failed to spend the time between the 11th May and today on separating the issues in this group, I said that I would be minded to seek to divide the Committee if only to register my displeasure in the Division Lobby--even though I was pretty certain that the Government would win.
	I am still so minded because the more that that debate went on during that hour and a half, the more it seemed to me that I was right. When the noble Lord accused me of not wanting the "Green Party" amendment because I was moving against the rest of them, that just confirmed my view. My objection is a matter of principle regarding the way that the amendments are "bundled". However, this will not in any way prevent me returning on Report on the major issue of the Northern Ireland parties. I shall not allow this amendment to pass without objecting to it.

[Amendments Nos. 63A to 63J, as amendments to Amendment No. 63, not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 63.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 16.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 21 [The register]:
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
	Clause 21 negatived.
	Clause 22 [Office-holders to be registered]:

Lord Rennard: moved Amendment No. 64A:
	Page 13, line 30, at end insert ("; and
	( ) for ensuring the compliance with the provisions of Parts V and VII (campaign expenditure and referendums)").

Lord Rennard: In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 and Amendments Nos. 197D to 197G, 199A to 199D, and 201A.
	Amendment No. 64A divides responsibility for the financial concerns of the treasurer and the parties' nominating officer who is more properly in control of parties' elections and campaigning. The nominating officer will be responsible in this legislation for supplying lists of candidates and the issuing of certificates and approval of descriptions, emblems and so on. The amendment would also ensure compliance with the provisions of Parts V and VII of the Bill on campaign expenditure and referendums. Amendment No. 66 leaves the treasurer with the responsibility for the overall financial affairs of a particular party.
	I speak as the nominating officer of the Liberal Democrats, so of course I have an interest. I am not seeking an extra work load, but I believe that it is more appropriate for me as nominating officer in charge of the election campaign to be held responsible for the election campaigning and accounts. Treasurers are often wonderful people. My party has a wonderful treasurer in Mr Reg Clarke, but the person who is responsible for taking round the begging bowl is not necessarily the one who should be held responsible for the party's detailed campaign expenditure and accounts, which follow from the declared election expenditure. Treasurers can often be a little remote from the day-to-day election process.
	I note some sympathy from the Conservative Party on the issue. I am sure that they are anxious not to have "Lord Ashcroft of Belize" in charge of their day-to-day campaigning. It is more sensible for party treasurers to deal with party accounts and fundraising and for party nominating officers to be held responsible for election accounts. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: I was responsible for Amendment No. 66, which appears in this grouping, so I shall explain why I tabled it. I have two problems with the aspects of the Bill regulating the funding of political parties. One is that the provisions on donations are too complex. We now have official confirmation from the Minister that this is a complex and bureaucratic Bill. I prefer a simple and transparent system. I shall return to that on later amendments.
	The other point that is central to the amendment is the scale of the responsibilities invested in party treasurers. The duties imposed by the Bill are onerous. Some of the amendments that the Government have tabled go some way to conceding that point, but not far enough. The provisions of Clause 58 are particularly onerous. We shall doubtless return to that on the clause stand part motion. That and related clauses, combined with the provisions on party donations, are likely to drive people away from serving as party treasurers. Why should anyone want to take on such a burden, having to comply with complex regulations and fearing having to face the courts if they make a mistake?
	In debates on other measures we have touched on the difficulties facing political parties. There is nothing unique to this country in that respect. Political parties in the western world are under pressure. People are channelling their political activities in other ways and not getting involved in political parties. We have touched on the need to address that.
	The Bill is designed to restore faith in the parties, yet the provisions on party donations and the reporting of campaign expenditure will threaten the capacity of local parties to function effectively. The Government need to address that. We shall doubtless return to that in detail on later amendments, but I wanted to raise it at this stage. I support much of what has been said. I should like to hear the Government's response and give them time to reflect on the issue before we discuss later amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I share the concern about the confusion of roles between fundraising and fund reporting. That is a serious defect in the Bill. In the City, where I work, we have what is known as the "four eyes" principle, which means that those who carry out one function must be checked by somebody else. That division of control is an essential part of any commercial enterprise. Shareholders in Barings Bank will recall what happened when Mr Leeson not only did the business, but checked it and looked after it afterwards.
	We need to find a way of separating fundraising and fund reporting. I am not sure whether the amendments go to the heart of the issue. The title of nominating officer contains a different implication. A commercial enterprise would probably have a compliance officer, but that may be adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. Certainly, I believe that what is being proposed and considered here both by my noble friend Lord Norton and by the proposer of the amendment is a significant improvement on the Bill as it stands at present.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In the Commons Committee stage on 20th January, the Minister responsible for the Bill there, Mr Tipping, said:
	"The Bill puts onerous duties on parties that register. Someone in the party must take responsibility for complying with them and it is really up to the political party to decide who that should be".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G; 20/1/00; col. 27.]
	In fact, the Bill is fairly prescriptive as to who it should be, and that is what concerns us.
	I shall not go on at length because I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson have more experience of the organisation of political parties than I do, and I hope that the Minister is listening to them. However, it seems to me that, by and large before this Bill started, the nominating officers were responsible for elections. That came under the Registration of Political Parties Act. Treasurers were a different breed of people.
	However, suddenly the matter becomes much more complicated and the treasurer may well have to carry out duties which are different from those that he is used to. My amendment would simply take out the words,
	"for the financial affairs of the party",
	so that the person registered as a party's treasurer must have overall responsibility for ensuring compliance. However, he would not necessarily be responsible for the financial affairs of the party because the person who does that is involved in collecting donations and in fund-raising and so on.
	As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, the person who collects and spends the money should not be the same as the person who ensures that all the regulations--and there are many in this piece of legislation--are complied with. It seems to me that we need to look at a way of separating the roles and that we should accept that all the political parties, including the Labour Party, have a huge amount of work to do. The treasurer plays a very important role within political parties. All our parties need cash and it is not an easy task to raise it. Frankly, I believe that it is piling far too much on one person to ask the treasurer to carry out other tasks.
	I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the matter when he responds to the brief speeches from the four Members who have spoken on this side of the Chamber, if not on this side of the political divide. I am quite sure that we shall be able to find some common ground and common words on which we can all agree either on Report or at Third Reading.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 22 requires that a person is registered as the treasurer of a registered party. Subsection (4) stipulates that a party's registered treasurer must have,
	"overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance with the provisions of Parts III to V and VII".
	Amendment No. 65 would remove the first part of the job description; namely, the requirement that the person registered as party treasurer has overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party. By contrast, Amendment No. 66 would retain that requirement but delete the requirement that the treasurer should be responsible for ensuring compliance with Parts III to V and VII of the Bill.
	Under the Bill, registered political parties are required to account for their income and expenditure. If the requirements are to be properly observed, it is essential that a party official is identified as having responsibility for ensuring compliance with those provisions and that consequently he can be held to account for a failure to do so. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
	In our view, whether a compliance officer (if I may refer to him or her as such) also needs to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party is a moot point. Certainly I would expect a person who had overall responsibility for a party's financial affairs to be able to fulfil the role of compliance officer. However, I accept that there is an argument that the two roles do not necessarily have to be combined. But it is essential that the compliance officer has sufficient authority within the party as a whole to ensure compliance with the controls on donations and the restrictions on campaign expenditure. That will necessarily involve, among other things, conferring on the compliance officer the authority to determine how much any particular part of the party may spend during the course of an election campaign.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will agree to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to reflect further upon what he has said on this matter and see what we can do. That is the most helpful way in which to proceed.
	The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Rennard, raise similar issues but they have a slightly different approach. We have had a number of discussions with the Liberal Democrats about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. As I understand it, their state parties--that is the Liberal Democrat parties in England, Scotland and Wales--have a considerable degree of autonomy from the federal party. Historically, the treasurer of the federal party has had no control over the financial affairs of the state parties. I understand that amendments to the party's federal constitution designed to square these internal party relationships with the provisions of the Bill were considered at the recent annual conference in Bournemouth. I congratulate the party on taking the necessary steps to comply with the Bill, but I accept that the changes made to the federal party's constitution do not put an end to the matter.
	We are not unsympathetic to the Liberal Democrats' difficulties. Indeed, we have been wrestling with that problem and a number of other similar conundrums for some time. I understand that splitting the responsibilities of the registered treasurer would go some way to assisting the Liberal Democrats to reconcile the requirements of the Bill with their present structures. In principle, I see no reason why that cannot be done without upsetting the arrangements in the Bill. Such a split would, of course, add a further complication but arguably this would be a small price to pay.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has suggested in his Amendment No. 64A that responsibility for compliance with the requirements in Parts V and VII should pass to the nominating officer. I know that as the nominating officer for the Liberal Democrats, he has overall responsibility for the party's national election campaigns. But while that may be true of the Liberal Democrats, it is not a model we should force on other parties. A preferable course might be to enable a party--it would not be obligatory--to register a person as treasurer with responsibilities for compliance with Parts III and IV and a second officer as the person responsible for compliance with Parts V and VII. As now, it would be open to a party to combine in one person the roles of registered leader, nominating officer, treasurer and responsible officer, or any combination of those.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would also agree to withdraw his amendments, I will similarly reflect carefully on the points he has raised with a view to bringing forward government amendments on this matter at Report. Therefore, that would help the Conservatives with the Ashcroft problem and help the Liberal Democrats with the federal problem.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, decides what to do with this amendment and ignoring the Minister's last point, I should tell him that I am grateful for his acceptance that the way the Bill is drafted imposes a very onerous duty on treasurers, and that will include the treasurer of his own party who, I suspect, is equally unhappy with the load that she will have to take on if and when this Bill becomes an Act.
	Therefore, I am content to withdraw the amendment, to wait to see what happens, and to hope that we make some progress in that regard.

Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. It is not our intention to impose our structures on any other party. But we hope it is possible for the Bill to reflect that different parties organise matters differently. Provided that the principles of the Bill are adhered to, it should not be too prescriptive in relation to who in each party is responsible for which parts. I should be happy to take on responsibility for Parts V and VII if our treasurer takes responsibility for Parts III and IV. If the Minister is able to bring forward an amendment which will allow us to do that, we should be very happy. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 67:
	Page 13, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("his appointment as treasurer terminates for any other reason").

Lord Bach: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, 76, 87, 87A, 90 to 92A, 98 to 101, 198, 199, 201, 282 to 286 and 287. Amendment No. 286 has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	These amendments are primarily designed to ensure that the register of political parties is kept up to date, both to assist the electoral commission in discharging its functions and for the benefit of the public generally.
	Among the information included in a party's entry in the register will be the name and headquarters address of the party; the names of the party's registered leader, registered nominating officer, registered treasurer and deputy treasurers; and the name of each accounting unit and the name and address of its treasurer. It is clearly important that this information remains accurate and that the commission is notified by a party of any changes as soon as practicable after they occur.
	As the Bill stands, there is no obligation on a party to alert the electoral commission to changes to the party's registered particulars as and when they occur. Clause 27 provides that a party may notify the commission of changes to the register, but there is no obligation on the party to do so. Indeed, a party is only required to confirm the accuracy of its registered particulars, or otherwise notify the commission of changes once a year under the provisions of Clause 28. That is not an adequate arrangement if the electoral commission is to have ready access to up-to-date particulars of any given registered parties.
	The effect of these perhaps minor amendments, and in particular of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 90, is to place a duty on the registered treasurer of a party to notify the electoral commission of changes to the party's registered particulars as soon as possible after they occur. Where the change arises from the death or resignation of one of a party's registered office holders, the new clause requires the registered treasurer to notify the commission of the appointment of a successor within 14 days of the death or resignation, as the case may be. In any other case, a registered treasurer has 28 days to notify the commission of changes to the party's registered particulars.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has tabled three amendments to our Amendment No. 90. Perhaps I may briefly speak to those now. The effect of the amendments is to transfer responsibility for notifying the commission of changes to a party's registered particulars from the registered treasurer to any registered officer of the party or a person authorised by such an officer. The amendments also extend the deadlines for notifying the commission of changes to the registered particulars.
	On the first point, it is entirely appropriate that responsibility for notifying the commission of changes in a party's registered particulars should rest with a senior officer of the party. Of course, the registered treasurer can look to his or her staff for support. But by requiring the treasurer to sign off a notification in person, both the electoral commission and the party itself can be assured that changes to the party's registered entry are made by someone of sufficient authority and standing within the party.
	As regards whether notification should be made within one or three months instead of 14 or 28 days, the issue is really one of the accuracy of the register. Is it really acceptable that a party's registered particulars should be up to three months out of date? We have recently legislated for a rolling electoral register which will enable people to re-register within six weeks of changing address. Against that background, we do not think that the time limits set out in the new clause would pose a serious problem for registered parties, particularly where they make use of an electronic link to the commission.
	The amendments to Clause 137 provide that the civil penalties set out in that clause will apply where a registered treasurer fails to comply with the requirements under the new clause.
	Amendments Nos. 69 and 198 deal with a separate point. Clauses 22 and 69 already provide that a person may not be registered as a party's treasurer or deputy treasurer if he has been convicted in the past five years of an offence under the Bill or in any other enactment relating to elections. Clearly, if it is wrong for someone with a recent conviction for such an offence to be appointed as a registered treasurer, it is equally inappropriate for someone to continue to serve in such a role after his or her conviction. These two amendments accordingly provide for the automatic termination of the appointment of a registered treasurer or deputy treasurer on conviction of a relevant offence. In the event that such a conviction is overturned on appeal it would be open to a party to reappoint the person concerned to his former post.
	Finally, Amendment No. 92A to Clause 29 provides that where a party ceases to be registered, it will remain liable for the controls set out in Parts III, IV and V of the Bill until the end of the financial year of the party following its removal from the register. That will ensure that deregistration is not used by a party as a tactic to avoid the controls set out in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: While at first sight Amendment No. 90 may seem innocuous, in fact it begins a trail which leads to some of the worst bureaucracy to be found in the Bill--and that is saying something.
	I speak, first, to my Amendments Nos. 90A, 90B and 90C. These amendments seek to lighten the burden. The government amendment as drafted places an obligation on the national treasurer to inform the commission of changes in the detail of party officers, the party's headquarters, and so forth.
	First, why should that duty fall on the treasurer? I thought that the treasurer's role was supposed to be concerned with financial matters rather than with the registration of detail. Why cannot that duty be performed by one of the other national officers of the party or even an authorised official?
	The short time-scale laid down by the Government for the alteration of details also causes me concern. It may not be possible for changes in the details of local parties to be notified to the commission by the national treasurer within 28 days. My amendments invite the Government to think again about those periods, especially because in the case of Amendment No. 282 a civil offence is created which is punishable with potentially heavy fines for anyone who fails to deliver the details within 14 or 28 days.
	These amendments relate to local parties and perhaps parties which are not very strong; for instance, local Labour parties in safe Conservative areas or local Conservative parties in safe Labour areas. An obligation has been placed on them to report that their treasurer has left them; that the treasurer has resigned or perhaps died. The report has to be submitted. It may be August and the holiday period may have begun. They have to find another treasurer and that will not be easy. It will be even less easy when the potential treasurer is handed a copy of this Bill when it becomes an Act and he is told, "You had better read that before next week". I am sure that we shall all find it difficult to find treasurers. A more generous time-scale ought to be considered by the Government. However, from the way the Minister spoke, it appears that nothing will change in that regard.
	One needs to be a detective in order to understand what the amendments involve. But perhaps I may invite Members of the Committee to turn to subsection (8) of the new clause, which states:
	"Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies to applications under subsection 3(a)".
	Fair enough, but there is a bit of devil in that detail. What are the applications under subsection (3)(a) to which Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies? They are the matters specified in subsections (2)(a) and (d). So we turn to those subsections and find that they are concerned with the alterations of the detail. Subsection (2)(a) relates to the name of any registered officer of the party, and subsection (2)(d)--this is crucial--to the name of any treasurer of any accounting unit of the party. That means, in broad terms, the treasurers of every local constituency Labour Party, every local Conservative Association and every local Liberal Democrat Association.
	But Part IIA of Schedule 3 does not appear in the Bill itself, or in Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. It appears in Amendment No. 101, on pages 30 and 31 of the Marshalled List. The crucial provision of Part IIA of Schedule 3 (Amendment No. 101) is the proposal in paragraph 10C which appears at the top of page 31. I am sorry to make this sound like a lesson but Members of the Committee will appreciate that finding one's way through these amendments is not the easiest task. So we go to the top of page 31 and there it states that an application, including an application for the alteration of a treasurer of a local party association,
	"must be signed by ... each person ... who is one of the responsible officers of the party".
	The paragraph goes on to state, very helpfully,
	"For the purposes of this paragraph 'the responsible officers' has the same meaning as in paragraph 10".
	But paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 is not on the Marshalled List; it is already in the Bill on page 109.
	I made the mistake of trying to fit all the Government's amendments into the Bill in order to discover what they were about and my copy is now full and complicated. However, paragraph 10 on page 109 defines the term "the responsible officers" as,
	"the registered leader ... nominating officer ... treasurer",
	of the party. Where are we? I hope that that is not the intention but it may be--I know not--behind Amendments Nos. 90 and 101.
	The effect is that, for any application to alter the registered detail of any treasurer of any local constituency association of our great parties, the signature must be obtained of three of the national officers of the party, including the Leader. So if the treasurer of any constituency Labour party, no matter how small it is, changes, the commission must receive a document containing the signature of the Leader of the Labour Party, the nominating officer and the national treasurer. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, can confirm to me that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the provisions of paragraph 10(2)(a) of Schedule 3. Is he aware that every now and then--and I suspect in reality quite often--somebody will be trotting up to Downing Street and popping into his Red Box a form which he will be expected to sign stating that Joe Bloggs has been replaced by Jeanie Bloggs in the Any Town Labour Party?

Lord Bach: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I had always thought that the noble Lord was in the wrong job. What he has said is an impressive display of forensic skill. Perhaps in order not just to shut him up but so that we may move on I may say that as a consequence of his remarks we will look at the proposed changes to the registered treasurer of an accounting unit. He seems to have a point there which perhaps he has made once or twice.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have made it only once but I now know how to get something out of the Government: mention that the Prime Minister might be involved and the Minister rises almost instantly. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
	I am sorry to bother him--he will table so many amendments--but I have another little point related to Amendment No. 69, which is in the group. It deals with convictions for offences. The amendment appears to provide that the treasurer of a registered party shall cease to hold office if,
	"he has been convicted ... of any offence under this Act or of any other offence committed in connection with a relevant election or a referendum".
	The key word is "convicted". I understand that, even if the treasurer were to appeal against his conviction and to win that appeal, he must relinquish his office for the duration of the appeal and might even be barred from returning to it after his conviction has been overturned.
	I wonder whether the Minister can defend this provision in the light of a recent case involving the Member of Parliament for Newark, Mrs Jones, who kept her seat despite the fact that she had been convicted of election offences and was awaiting appeal. That is almost the same situation and it seems to me unfair that a treasurer must relinquish his post if he is appealing while a Member of Parliament had the pleasure of not doing so until the appeal, which was successful. The point is that the appeal by the treasurer could equally be successful.
	I have not been able to trace that back to the Prime Minister but if the noble Lord gives me long enough I might manage it. I hope that he will consider the point.

Lord Bach: I will certainly look at that last point. We are suggesting that on conviction the treasurer's appointment is automatically terminated. However, I take the noble Lord's point and perhaps we should consider whether there is a possibility of delaying that until the date for leave to appeal is reached, after which it will automatically terminate. I make no promises but we will take that matter away too.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70:
	Page 13, line 41, leave out ("accordance with section 27") and insert ("pursuance of an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a)").
	Page 14, line 12, at end insert--
	("(8) Where a person registered as treasurer of a registered party is convicted of an offence falling within subsection (7)(b), his appointment as treasurer of the party shall terminate on the date of the conviction.").
	Page 14, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) In connection with the registration of a party in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register in accordance with section (The new registers)(4)--
	(a) a person may be registered in the Northern Ireland register as leader of the separate party registered in that register if (although not such a leader of the party as is mentioned in subsection (2) above) he is leader of the party in Northern Ireland; and
	(b) references to a person's responsibilities in subsection (3) or (4) above shall be read as references to the responsibilities that he will have with respect to the separate party registered in the Great Britain register or the Northern Ireland register, as appropriate.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Financial structure of registered party: adoption of scheme]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Page 15, line 10, at end insert--
	("( ) The Commission shall, in relation to any scheme under this section, give guidance in the form of a "model scheme" for the use of political parties and the Commission shall be entitled to--
	(a) modify any such "model scheme" from time to time as it thinks fit; or
	(b) request additional information from each party registering, or registered, in respect of its financial structure.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall be brief because I suspect that in part Amendment No. 71 has been overtaken by some rather complicated events. My concern in this amendment is that political parties must submit their scheme to the commission. The commission may play about with it and the matter may go to and fro until there is a form of agreement. I believe that to be unnecessarily cumbersome. The amendment proposes that the commission should bring forward a model scheme for the use of all political parties. That would be particularly helpful to the smaller ones. It may be that the three great parties would not have much trouble. However, some of the smaller parties--for example the Green Party--might face difficulties. It would be far more sensible to have a model scheme by the commission which indicated what it would like, especially as the Government want to introduce a good deal of this material quickly.
	I am aware that political parties have recently been sent provisional guidance. I suspect that the Minister will tell me that that is enough. All I say is that the size of the provisional guidance underlines the enormity of the bureaucracy which the Bill imposes on political parties. It is far better for the commission to be asked to send a model scheme to the parties. If so, they would all know what they were aiming for. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: Clause 23 requires as a condition of registration that each political party submits a scheme for the commission's approval setting out the party's structure for the purposes of regulating its financial affairs under the Bill. Clearly, the preparation and approval of such schemes is central to the effective operation of the controls set out in the Bill. We entirely share the noble Lord's view that it is desirable for the commission to offer advice and guidance to the political parties as to the content and presentation of such a scheme. We have no doubt that it will do so; and advice on these matters has already been issued to existing registered parties.
	Clause 9(3) specifically empowers the commission to provide advice and assistance to registered parties. The commission will wish to see the arrangements for the adoption of schemes work smoothly. It has nothing to gain from repeatedly having to request further information and will wish to avoid disputes about whether a particular scheme adequately describes a party's structure. However, we are not persuaded that we should seek to prescribe on the face of the Bill just how the commission should go about providing such guidance. Nor do we believe that Amendment No. 71 proposes the best practicable means of doing so. The proposal is that the commission should devise a model scheme upon which, presumably, parties may hang their own particular arrangements.
	However, the very purpose of Clause 23 is to meet the point that political parties in this country are so diverse in their structure--we have had hints of that in the debates this evening--that any attempt to shoe-horn them into some kind of preconceived model of a political party is futile. We believe that the idea of a model scheme that is applicable to all registered parties is open to the same objection. However, the electoral commission project team in the Home Office is consulting on a draft model scheme that may fit the circumstances of the smallest registered parties which do not have accounting units. Paragraph (b) of the proposed amendment demonstrates the difficulties of a one-size-fits-all approach. The paragraph appears to suggest that the development of a model scheme would be dependent upon the receipt of information from the political parties about their financial structures. It may be that we begin to go round in circles.
	We are sympathetic to the idea that the commission should provide guidance, and we have no doubt that it will. I hope the noble Lord is persuaded that his amendment may be more of a hindrance than a help to the commission and will accordingly withdraw it.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response. I hear what he says and appreciate that, on that basis, it would certainly be easier for the Labour Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats to cope with these issues. I am pleased to hear that the unit in the Home Office is looking at the problem as it affects the smaller parties. On that hopeful note, I am content to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 15, line 15, at end insert (", with the exception of any organisation that--
	(i) has paid an affiliation fee to a registered party, or
	(ii) has a direct input into policy formation within a registered party, or
	(iii) has a direct input into the selection of candidates for political office within a registered party").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. The amendments are directed to Clause 23. In order to show the enormity of what the Government are trying to do, I shall read out the important parts of Clause 23. Subsection (8) states:
	"For the purposes of this section"--
	for example, financial structures of registered parties--
	"none of the following shall be taken to be a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to a party--(a) a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992".
	Therefore, a trade union affiliated to the Labour Party is not to be taken as an affiliated trade union. Subsection (8) then does the same for friendly societies and for,
	"any other organisation of a description prescribed by order".
	I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord is considering under paragraph (c)--"any other organisation". I do not think many friendly societies are involved. It is Clause 23(3)(a) which concerns me. It is standing fact on its head. How one can possibly accept that the trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party--I have no problem with them being affiliated to the Labour Party--are somehow for the purposes of the Bill not affiliated to the Labour Party? That beggars belief.
	The Committee should not accept my word that the trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. I could read out the evidence of the Labour Party to the commission. I shall not because it is late at night. There were submissions from political parties and at page 228 there is one from the Labour Party. I shall quote parts of it. It states:
	"The Labour Party is a federation of affiliated organisations, of which trade unions are the largest".
	They are the largest affiliated organisation in the Labour Party, yet the Bill says they are not to be considered as affiliated to the Labour Party. The Labour Party's evidence continues:
	"The principle of affiliated membership is a reflection of the fact that in the British political system, as in others, there is no single or one-dimensional view of how a political party should be organised or structured, whether in terms of composition or manner of internal government. In the British system we have accepted a plurality of forms of political party, and have accepted the principle that the members of political parties may properly include both individuals and organisations acting on behalf of their members."
	It further states:
	"The rights vested in members of affiliated trade unions include, either under the constitution of the party or as a matter of practice, the right to vote for the leader and deputy leader of the party; and the right to vote on the election manifesto of the party".
	We know that. That is not disputed. The affiliated trade unions are fully part of the Labour Party. I am not complaining about that; that is what they are. But I complain about this almost sleight of hand that simply says "but for the purpose of the Bill they will not be affiliated". Noble Lords may wonder why a government will allow such a piece of legislation which is so clearly a sleight of hand. The simple reason is that if the Bill is enacted the trades unions will be able, as they do, to contribute to the funds of the Labour Party. I see from today's paper that the Prime Minister wants them to contribute even more to the party. The Daily Mail states:
	"Blair begs the union barons for £20 million".
	He will not need more money from anywhere else because that is as much as he can spend on the general election. But there he is turning to them as major backers of the Labour Party. We all know they are. There is no problem with that. If they continue to do that they should be open and above board about the amount of money they contribute.
	But it is open and above board. I believe everyone knows what they contribute. So why do the Government need to put this provision in the Bill? They want to have their cake and eat it. They want the affiliated trade unions not only to be fully paid-up members of the Labour Party, taking part in everything the Labour Party does and paying money to the Labour Party; they also want the trade unions to be considered separate from the Labour Party so that they can be considered as third parties when it comes to electioneering. Each of them will be able to spend jolly nearly £1 million on electioneering if they have any money left after Mr Blair takes away the money he wants from them.
	I do not know how many trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. I fully accept that not all of them could afford to spend just under £1 million. If there are 18, they could together spend jolly nearly £18 million, plus the £20 million spent by the Labour Party. That is not just a small coach and horses through the principles of the Bill--we heard so much about the principles of the Bill when we were talking about Northern Ireland--it is an enormous coach and horses. The Government have a cheek to come forward with a proposal as blatant as this one. It is amazing that they have the brass neck to come forward with this amazing proposal, especially as, by their own evidence, the trade unions are the most important affiliated part of the Labour Party. Then, suddenly, we have all to pretend--it is like Alice in Wonderland--that they are not really affiliated to the Labour Party. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: As Amendment No. 74 has also been spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 74A.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I enjoyed that mischievous and circuitous trip around the Bill and its contents. With these amendments we return to ground which has already been trodden in another place. I welcome the opportunity to explain the purpose of subsection (8) of Clause 23. It is not quite as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his very entertaining way, described.
	It is indeed the case that there are trade unions which are affiliated to the Labour Party and which, going solely by the party's constitution, would be regarded as parts of the party. If that were not so, the question of their inclusion in or exclusion from the party's scheme would simply not arise. But it should be remembered that the schemes adopted under Clause 23 are to be solely for the purpose of regulating the financial affairs of the party. They are not intended as a comprehensive description of what constitutes a political party. That is the key point for the noble Lord to take away from this debate.
	As the noble Lord has pointed out, the Labour Party does indeed receive substantial amounts of money from the trade unions, properly and openly raised and accounted for under the distinct statutory arrangements which exist precisely for that purpose. Far from being a device to obscure those financial or political links, the very purpose of subsection (8) is to ensure that such funding and the relationship are transparent. I am confident that, when he reflects further on the matter, the noble Lord will accept and agree with this.
	The controls on donations set out in Part IV of this Bill regulate the receipt of funds by a political party from other sources. They do not regulate a political party's internal transactions. If affiliated trade unions were included within the schemes for regulating parties' affairs for the purposes of the Bill, the first consequence would be that the party would then not be obliged to declare donations to the party from the trade union. The movement of the money would be on a par with, for example, affiliation fees paid by constituency organisations to the central headquarters of a party--an internal party transaction with no requirement for the payment to appear in the party's donation reports. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree, on reflection, that that would not be right.
	One purpose of the Bill is to enable the public to gain a reliable account of where the money available to political parties comes from, and to compare one with another as to the money they receive and spend. In the public mind, and in reality, trade unions are donors to a party. Figures which excluded their contributions would be wholly misleading. A further consequence would be that, under Part III of the Bill, the party concerned would have to account for the financial affairs of the trade union--and for all its affairs, not just those relating to political activity. That is wholly unnecessary, given the substantial statutory regulatory provision which already exists for that purpose in legislation put in place in large measure by members of the party opposite. It would also be misleading and confusing. The treasurer of a political party does not in fact have any control over the financial affairs of an affiliated trade union and to create a scheme of control, when separate provision is already in existence, would be a difficult as well as a pointless exercise. Furthermore, it would burden the electoral commission with a large amount of financial information in which it would have absolutely no interest.
	Subsection (8)(c), which Amendment No. 74 would remove, provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order other categories of organisations which are also to be regarded as not forming part of a party's structure for the purposes of the controls set out in the Bill. Again, the purpose of the provision is to provide a mechanism for ensuring that parties are not required to account for the financial affairs of organisations which have a relatively autonomous existence and, at the same time, ensure that transactions between parties and such organisations are subject to the controls set out in Part IV. The alternative is for a party to be responsible for independent affiliated organisations over which they have no financial or administrative control.
	I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord is seeking to remove the order-making power in Clause 23(8)(c). We have already invited existing registered parties to put forward organisations mentioned in their party's constitution which should be included in a Clause 23(8)(c) order.
	The Conservative Party for one has responded positively to that invitation. It has put forward a number of candidates for inclusion in such an order, including the Association of Conservative Clubs, the Conservative Medical Society and the Society of Conservative Lawyers. Indeed, I believe that I have some correspondence, a copy of which has come into the unit, which lists a whole range of other very interesting and worthy Conservative groups such as Conservatives at Work, the Conservative Disability Group, the Conservative Foreign Affairs Forum, the National Conservative Women's Council, the Tory Green Initiative, the Society of Conservative Accountants--that sounds an interesting body--the Association of Conservative Clubs and even the Association of Conservative Peers. It is clear to me that the Conservative Party understands the purpose of this clause and why it has been included in the Bill. If Conservative Central Office can see the case for Clause 23(8)(c), I am sure that the noble Lord can also be persuaded that the provision should stand as it is.
	Having received a number of proposals for inclusion in a Clause 23(8) order, it is apparent that the organisations affiliated to existing registered parties do not all lend themselves to being classified by generic descriptions. The government amendment in this group therefore enables an order to specify individual organisations as well as generic classes of organisation.
	No decision has been taken on which organisations should be included in a Clause 23(8)(c) order. Existing registered parties have been given until 23rd October to put forward their nominations. We shall need to move quickly thereafter so that the order can come into force two weeks after Royal Assent. This will tie in with the start of the six-week compliance period during which existing registered parties will have to send their draft scheme to the electoral commission. I should also emphasise that in making any order under this clause, our aim is to proceed on the basis of a cross-party consensus. There should be no question of any party seeking to obtain partisan advantage from this process. Indeed, I would not suggest for a moment that the noble Lord opposite would go along such a path.
	I trust that, in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That explanation was more interesting for what it omitted rather than for what it actually said. Of course I am familiar with subsection (8)(c) and the exchange of correspondence. However, I am not entirely certain that even for a moment the various associations of the Conservative Party mentioned by the noble Lord, any more than those of the Liberal Democrats or the Labour Party, will be in a position to spend a great deal of money as third parties in the election. I wondered about the Association of Labour Lawyers in that I am not sure whether I could include it in the list of those not able to spend £1 million. However, I doubt if it will do so. I should imagine that the lawyers make their donations rather more directly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should think that the Society of Conservative Accountants might be able to offer a few pennies as well.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: They might be worth a few pennies, as I hope are the Conservative lawyers. Frankly, however, I doubt if they will electioneer as a third party. There is no evidence that any of those organisations have electioneered as a third party, which is my main point.
	I noticed that the Minister did not confirm or deny my assertion that affiliated trade unions--I am not talking about other trade unions--would be able to give money to the Labour Party and be able to spend up to £1 million as third parties. If my memory serves me rightly, UNISON spent quite a lot of money at the previous election campaigning on issues which it thought were important and which were fairly directly connected with the direct proposition that one should vote Labour.
	There is a huge difference between the various organisations he read out in subsection 8(c) and the organisations in subsection 8(a). His argument on subsection 8(a) was very simple. His first argument was that if trade unions were not outside the schemes in the Bill, all their financial affairs would have to be included--not only the ones involving political activity. I cannot believe that the Government and their officials would find it impossible to meet this point by including the affiliated trade unions and so on in the Bill for the purposes of political expenditure--that is, making the whole Labour Party, including the trade unions, subject to the £20 million limit.
	The other interesting proposition is that the party would not be obliged to declare donations from a trade union were it not for this part of the clause. That is a totally spurious argument. Not only does the Labour Party publish the details of money it receives from the trade unions in its annual accounts, but the details of trade union political funds are regulated and made public. Unions are required already to make annual returns of their financial affairs available for public inspection. That is made perfectly clear in paragraph 6.21 of Lord Neill's report. I am afraid that the noble Lord's argument about that does not really stand up.
	The open agenda here--it would be nice if we had a bit of open government--is to allow organisations which are reasonably wealthy and interested in politics not only to affiliate to and be actively involved in the Labour Party, not only to give the Labour Party large amounts of money, but to be able to spend large amounts of money--outside the cap on the political parties--on electioneering as third parties.
	It would be refreshing if the Government were to own up. It is a simple proposition. The Minister knows that I am quite correct that this will happen. Is the Minister denying that this will be the consequence of the clause? Of course he is not. He cannot because this will be the consequence. However, at this time of night, I have made my point. I may return to it at a later stage if I think I can appeal to the noble Lord's sense of moral outrage. If I cannot do that, I may not return to it. We shall see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 74A and 75:
	Page 15, line 20, leave out ("of a description prescribed by") and insert ("specified, or of a description specified, in an").
	Page 15, line 24, at end insert--
	("( ) In connection with the registration of a party in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register, subsection (1)(a) and the other provisions of this section apply (in accordance with section (The new registers)(5)) separately in relation to the party in Great Britain and the party in Northern Ireland, and in that connection--
	(a) any reference in this section to a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to the party shall be read as a reference to a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to the party in Great Britain or the party in Northern Ireland, as appropriate; and
	(b) any reference in this Part to the party's constitution shall be read as a reference to the party's constitution so far as relating to the party in Great Britain or the party in Northern Ireland, as appropriate;
	and the party's scheme must show that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain will be conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Financial structure of registered party: accounting units]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 15, line 39, leave out ("and (7)") and insert (", (7) and (8)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 76A:
	Page 15, line 42, leave out ("the person registered as treasurer of the party") and insert ("any other officer of the accounting unit").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to be helpful to the Government by suggesting an amendment which seeks to correct a fairly bizarre piece of drafting in the Bill which is certainly bizarre in its effect.
	I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is to reply to the amendment. We may make some progress here. The noble Lord's briefing probably says that as presently drafted Clause 24(3) applies the provisions of Clause 22(5) and (7) to the political parties' accounting units with certain modifications. Put more simply, Clause 24(3) means that if the treasurer of a local Conservative association or a constituency Labour Party dies, resigns or is voted out, until a successor is appointed the responsibility for the local party's financial affairs falls on the national treasurer of the national party.
	How can the national party treasurer possibly ensure personally--and he must do so personally, for he will be legally liable under the Bill--that the financial affairs of such a local party are administered to the required standard, when the treasurer will probably have his or her hands tied with all the other consequences of the Bill?. He or she will be busily involved in the bureaucracy here in London, whereas the local party may be far away and may not be in a very good seat for the political party, which may not have a very big organisation there.
	I may be wrong, but as I read the clause it appears that the national treasurer will be open to criminal prosecution if such a local party breaches any of the Bill's complex rules while he is responsible for its financial affairs. The drafting of the clause, in so far as it relates to local parties, does not reflect Clause 22(5) which relates to national parties. If the national treasurer dies or resigns, the leader of the party becomes legally responsible for the finances. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has told the Prime Minister about that as well. But if a local treasurer dies or resigns, it is not the chairman or the secretary of the local party who becomes responsible and takes over the legal responsibility, but the national treasurer of the party. Is it realistic to expect the national treasurer of a party to discharge all the functions relating to the United Kingdom and then to discharge these particular local functions as well?
	My amendment would change the situation so that another officer of the local party, rather than the national treasurer, would take over responsibility if a local treasurer died or resigned. I believe that that is a simpler, better and fairer way to deal with this matter. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. It seems more relevant to the reality of how political parties are run and not to the odd way that the Bill sometimes assumes that political parties are run. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I am afraid that I cannot be as helpful as I have been earlier this evening to the noble Lord. Amendment No. 76A is concerned with the situation in which a person registered as the treasurer of an accounting unit ceases to hold office and a person has yet to be registered in his or her place. The Bill presently states that in such circumstances the person registered as the treasurer of the party as a whole shall be deemed to be responsible for that accounting unit's financial affairs until such time as another person is registered as the accounting unit's treasurer.
	If the amendment were to be carried, that responsibility would instead fall to some other officer of the accounting unit itself. We understand the reasons for the amendment. The very purpose of providing for the registration of separate accounting units is to take account of the fact that constituency associations and other local party organisations are usually responsible for their own financial affairs. In these circumstances, it would not normally be appropriate to hold the national party treasurer responsible for the accounts of such local party units. However, under Clause 24, the national treasurer would step into the void only in exceptional circumstances, such as the death of the treasurer of an accounting unit.
	The difficulty with the noble Lord's approach is that it envisages responsibility for compliance falling to,
	"any other officer of the accounting unit".
	But there is no requirement on a registered party to notify the electoral commission of the names of any other officers of an accounting unit. How then would the commission know which particular officer is to be held responsible? Unless we were to complicate the registration scheme yet further by providing for the registration of other officers of each accounting unit, the only practical alternative is to deem the registered treasurer of the central party organisation to be the responsible officer.
	In practice, the end sought by the amendment could be achieved if, in the event of the registered treasurer of an accounting unit ceasing to hold that position, the party promptly registered another officer of the accounting unit as its new treasurer. That would, of course, require the management committee of the accounting unit to act quickly to appoint a successor. But it would need to do that in any event under this amendment in order to ensure that one of its number took on responsibility for the accounts. This underlines the fact that political parties will need to be alert to the consequences of the registration arrangements.
	If a party intends to register as a party with accounting units, it will be important to ensure that procedures are in place to respond quickly to the death, or resignation, of a registered officer of the party or of one of its accounting units. With a little planning and guidance from party headquarters, we see no reason why that cannot be done. Many of us have practical experience of how parties actually run. We do not believe that what we propose here is impractical.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is another example of the view from 20,000 feet, as opposed to the view on the ground. In his eloquent explantion, the Minister talked about "accounting units". We are talking about constituency associations. They are real, live things: they are not creatures of Whitehall or of the commission. They vary enormously in their strength and their capability--and that applies to all parties--depending on where they are located. The role of the Conservative association treasurer in Stoke-on-Trent Central, or of the Labour Party treasurer in Cotswold, is not an enviable one.
	In such circumstances, and bearing in mind the additional weight that will be imposed on them by other provisions in the Bill, there is a real chance that many of these associations will become de facto defunct because people will not wish to take on the burden, especially in parts of the country where their party is not the predominant one. If that were to happen, it would have serious implications for our democracy. It is important that all parties--indeed, even dear old Mr Bill Boakes's party--should be encouraged to have as wide a participation as possible.
	My noble friend's amendment would provide greater flexibility at local level, instead of this moving immediately from the local "accounting unit"--a ghastly phrase, but I shall use it--to the centre. I can envisage a situation where the treasurer (if we have a treasurer when we come to the final version of the Bill) of, say, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat Party will end up being de facto and de jure the treasurer of a whole range of individual associations at local level, especially in parts of the country that are not favourable to that particular party's cause. It will not be possible to find people to take on the work and the responsibilities that will be thrust upon them by virtue of the Bill. At least the amendment of my noble friend offers an opportunity to take a slightly wider view. I believe it to be worthy of greater support and explanation than the Minister has so far given it.

Lord Bach: I am disappointed by that contribution from so expert and experienced a source as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I believe that his view is much too pessimistic. There are many party activists in all three major parties. We are talking about parties with accounting units--not Bill Boakes's party, or his successor's party--which realise that the law as regards political parties must be, if I may use the word, "modernised" and regulated. On balance, they would much prefer to have a scheme like the one we propose than the haphazard methods previously employed. I do not believe that this would lead to such a shortage, any more than there is a shortage at present.
	The noble Lord did not answer the point that I attempted to make in my response to the amendment. If it is to be any other officer of the accounting unit, is he suggesting that every officer of each unit should be registered through the electoral commission? Alternatively, is the noble Lord happy that it should be any other officer of an accounting unit, so that the commission would not even know who was responsible for the finances of, say, Cotswold or Stoke-on-Trent Central?

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank the Minister for those comments. The simple answer is that a period of time should be allocated during which that can happen. My noble friend's amendment does not mention a timescale but it would be perfectly possible to allocate a period of time during which a local party could nominate another officer and, failing that, it could approach the national treasurer. At least it would have a chance to sort itself out and make the necessary arrangements. If that is not the case, one becomes engaged in an enormous bureaucratic process and imposes on the national treasurer a range of duties that no sane man or woman would wish to take on.

Lord Bach: Who will be in charge between the time when the treasurer resigns and a new treasurer is appointed? Should it be the national treasurer with overall responsibility, or should it be some officer of the accounting unit whose name may not even be known to the electoral commission? That issue has not yet been properly addressed and therefore we cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I say with respect that I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed my next point. In regard to an intervening period before a new officer is appointed, has there been at constituency level or at accounting unit level the range of problems that the Bill seeks to tackle? Are we not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut? I understand the concerns that have been expressed with regard to overseas funding. However, as regards the issue we are discussing at the moment, there have been relatively few difficulties for all parties at local constituency level.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been a disappointing debate in that the scenario I painted seems to be the correct one and the paper trail I followed leads to the conclusion that I feared. The noble Lord has confirmed that. It would be much more comfortable to be able to say to the noble Lord that he has clearly never been involved in a political party at constituency level. However, I know that that is not the case. That makes it even stranger that he should live in Cloud-cuckoo-land with regard to political parties.

Lord Bach: For better or worse I was the treasurer of a constituency Labour Party for 15 years.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That makes the position even worse. I should have thought that the noble Lord might have brought that experience to bear on the people who drafted the Bill who clearly know nothing about political parties or how they operate. As my noble friend said, it is preposterous to expect the national treasurer of a party suddenly to become responsible for the finances of a local party whose treasurer has died or who has not resigned at an AGM or a special general meeting when another treasurer could be appointed. If the noble Lord is not aware that these things happen, he must have lived in some fortunate constituencies. These things happen and treasurers are not easy to obtain. It will be a darned sight more difficult to obtain them once the Bill is enacted and they are told that they had better read it before they become local treasurers.
	As I say, the noble Lord lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land if he does not appreciate that every week of every year treasurers of constituencies will, for whatever reason, no longer be in post. Therefore, I suggest that every week the poor old national treasurer will be responsible for at least one constituency funding. That is a ludicrous proposition. I cannot put it any higher than that. I should have thought that if the Government need to have another person nominated, we could devise an amendment which states that one of the other officers should be nominated pro tem. Simply to state that the duty will fall on the national treasurer is quite amazing.
	I am amazed at the Government's response. My noble friend Lord Hodgson, who knows more about the matter than I, expressed his points well. I should have thought that the secretary's name or the chairman's name might suffice in these circumstances. As I say, the idea that the poor old national treasurer will have to take over the affairs of the local party is crazy. As my noble friend says, I wonder whether the measure is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What is the problem with constituency parties? Where is the corruption there? Does the noble Lord know of any? As far as I know, there has been none. If there has been corruption, that has involved electoral systems. However, I shall not go into that given where I live and what people do there on election day. I do not believe that there has been widespread misdeed as regards the funding of local constituency parties--and certainly not the kind of body which will have difficulty in finding a new treasurer. In addition to not having a new treasurer, such bodies do not have lots of money.
	I am sorry the noble Lord has been so negative. We shall read carefully what he said and consider whether we can bring forward an amendment which addresses his concerns, although they are totally false, and relieve the national treasurer of the obligation of having one constituency association after another landing in his lap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Registration of parties]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Page 16, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert--
	("(1) A party may apply to be registered under this Part by sending to the Commission an application which--
	(a) complies with the requirements of Part I of Schedule 3, and
	(b) is accompanied by a declaration falling within subsection (1A).
	(1A) The declarations falling within this subsection are--
	(a) a declaration that the party--
	(i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections in Great Britain and one or more such elections in Northern Ireland, and
	(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered (as two such separate parties as are mentioned in section (The new registers)(4)) in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register;
	(b) a declaration that the party--
	(i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections (which will not be confined to one or more parish or community elections) in Great Britain only, and
	(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Great Britain register only;
	(c) a declaration that the party--
	(i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections in Northern Ireland only, and
	(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Northern Ireland register only;
	(d) a declaration that the party--
	(i) intends only to contest one or more parish or community elections, and
	(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Great Britain register only.
	(1B) A declaration falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of subsection (1A) must specify the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which the party is applying to be registered in the Great Britain register.").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 77A to 77G, as amendments to Amendment No. 77, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 77 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
	Page 16, line 9, leave out ("The Commission shall grant such an application by a party") and insert ("Where a party sends an application to the Commission in accordance with subsection (1), the Commission shall grant the application").
	Page 16, line 11, after ("would") insert ("either--
	(i) be the same as that of a party which is already registered in the register in which that party is applying to be registered, or
	(ii)")
	Page 16, line 12, at end insert ("in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 80A:
	Page 16, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Norton of Louth: This subsection stipulates the grounds on which the commission shall refuse an application to register the name of a particular party. Under paragraph (b) the commission must refuse an application from a party whose name comprises more than six words. That limit derives from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1969 covering the candidate's description on nomination and ballot papers. It is maintained in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. Indeed this, and the subsequent two clauses, re-enact with modifications provisions of the 1998 Act.
	I raise the point as one of principle. A six word limit appears unduly restrictive. Perhaps the newly formed party would like to use seven or eight words in its title. That may not be sensible; it may not appeal to voters. On the other hand, it may help to convey what the party stands for. A description in excess of six words may be desirable, especially for parties with a territorial base which may wish to embody that in the title.
	When the Registration of Political Parties Bill was debated at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, commented on the imagination employed by some minor parties in keeping within the six word limit. I am sure that that is so. One has only to consider some of the titles used. But is it necessary now to force parties to keep within such a tight limit?
	I appreciate that the counter-argument is the practical argument that there is only a limited space on ballot papers. That is the reason for the restriction. However, I am not sure that the title needs to be so limited as to confine a party's name to six words. I am not sure that the names of parties should be determined to such a degree by the amount of space available on a piece of paper.
	I appreciate that there is a case for some limit, not only for reasons of space but also to prevent abuse. However, I raise the question as to whether the limit is set at the right level. The limit was not questioned by noble Lords when the Registration of Political Parties Bill was before the House and I thought it appropriate to raise the issue now. It is important for the parties and--to revert to a point made earlier--it may be to the benefit of electors that parties have greater latitude when describing themselves.
	I appreciate that this is not the most crucial amendment that we shall debate but I do not regard it as wholly marginal either. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Is the noble Lord suggesting that we simply delete paragraph (b) and make no attempt to replace it? Does he believe that parties should be able to describe themselves however they like, or does he intend to come back with a further amendment limiting the description to, say, nine or 10 words?

Lord Norton of Louth: This is intended to be a probing amendment to see what response we get from the Government. I did not want to be overly prescriptive at this stage. I just wanted to see whether the Government were interested in amending the limit. There may be a case for increasing the limit slightly or giving the commission a little flexibility. I did not intend to remove the limit altogether.

Viscount Astor: Amendment No. 81 is in this group. It may be helpful if I speak to it. It would apply a test of reasonableness to the Electoral Commission, ensuring that it would not unreasonably withhold registration and would explain in writing to the applicant if registration was withheld.
	We do not think it very likely that there will be deliberate obstruction of a political party's registration, but it is important to establish that the commission must have good reasons for refusing registration and must explain those reasons fully. The amendment would greatly reduce the likelihood of cases going to judicial review or the High Court. As we have seen recently, commissions can be taken to court and can be found wanting.
	As well as preventing the electoral commission from behaving unreasonably, as I am sure that it would not, the amendment would strengthen the idea that any party with a reasonable case should be given registration. Very importantly, it would also specify that if registration was refused, the reasons should be given in writing, so that the party in question could decide whether it wanted to appeal or was prepared to accept the judgment of the commission.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has explained, his amendment would simply delete subsection (2)(b) from Clause 25. That paragraph requires the electoral commission to refuse an application for registration from a party if the proposed registered name of the party comprises more than six words. As I am sure that the noble Lord is ready to acknowledge, the provision replicates an existing provision in Section 3(1)(b) of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.
	The limitation on the number of words reflects the requirements of rule 6 of the parliamentary election rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. That rule allows a candidate to state a description on his nomination paper. Any such description is then carried through to the ballot paper. Under rule 6(2), a description must not exceed six words. If there were no such restriction on the length of a candidate's description, there would clearly be scope for abuse. A candidate could describe what he stands for in a 500-word mini manifesto. Does the noble Lord really want to be faced with that when he enters a polling booth? I suspect not. The limitation of six words is entirely reasonable. It has been an accepted part of our electoral arrangements for 30 years and I have heard no persuasive argument for changing it.
	Amendment No. 81 would place the Electoral Commission under an obligation not to withhold registration unreasonably and to give its reasons for withholding registration in writing. We have heard many allegations and suggestions today that the Bill is overly bureaucratic--I have owned up to that--and over prescriptive. I have no doubt that the commission will give its reasons in writing, but I do not think that it is necessary to specify such good practice in the Bill. I am sure that the commission will be mindful of the fact that its adjudications could be challenged. No doubt it will want to confirm its view in writing, but I see no reason to specify that in the Bill. The only grounds for refusing an application for registration are those set out in Clause 25(2). It is quite clear that the electoral commission would be subject to a successful application for judicial review if it introduced extraneous and irrelevant considerations into its determinations. I am sure that that will be widely understood. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 81. I understand the point that the Minister made about the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the commission's decision. However, he said that he was sure that the commission would want to carry out good practice and put its reasons in writing. Therefore, it seems to make perfect sense to include that provision in the Bill. It simply confirms what is said and I believe that it is important that that is so. That is the minimum safeguard that we would require without going for the full amendment as drafted.
	I hope that the noble Lord will consider that point; otherwise, I believe that we shall have to return on Report with at least the second part of the amendment, which ensures that any explanation is, indeed, put in writing.

Lord Norton of Louth: I have noticed on past occasions that when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responds to points he sometimes delivers a speech of two halves. In the first half he expresses his own opinion, which tends to be extremely helpful; in the second half, he reads out the brief, which tends to be less helpful. I was a little disappointed in his response this evening because he confined himself to the brief.
	I was disappointed because it struck me that he was either repeating points that I had just made or he was making points which I had anticipated and dealt with in my opening comments. Therefore, boiled down to its essentials, the only point that he made in response to what I said was that the system has worked for 30 years. Of course it has worked for 30 years; that is the law that has been applied, and parties have not been allowed to have more than six words in their name. Therefore, in that sense it has worked.
	One can only really advance the argument that it has worked effectively if one knows whether anyone is pressing for more than six words. Of course, we do not know whether that is the case. Therefore, I raised the point of whether there should be greater flexibility. As I pointed out in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I do not want to allow an unlimited use of words. However, I believe that there may be a case for a little more flexibility if there is a demand for it. As it may be worth reflecting on that point, I therefore raised the issue in order to put it into the Minister's mind. However, as I said earlier, I do not consider this to be the most crucial amendment that we are debating this evening. It is not something on which we should go to the wall. Having put the matter into the Minister's mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
	Page 16, line 21, at end insert--
	("(2A) In subsection (2)(a) "already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom" means--
	(a) in connection with registration of the applicant party in the Great Britain register, already registered in respect of any part of Great Britain in respect of which that party is applying to be registered;
	(b) in connection with registration of the applicant party in the Northern Ireland register, already registered in that register.").
	Page 16, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) If--
	(a) at any time two or more applications for registration are pending each of which would (in the absence of the other or others) fall to be granted by the Commission, but
	(b) the registered names proposed by the applicant parties are such that, if one of those names was already registered in pursuance of the application in question, the Commission would be required to refuse the other application or applications by virtue of subsection (2)(a),
	the Commission shall determine by reference to the history of each of the applicant parties which of them has, in the Commission's opinion, the greater or greatest claim to the name proposed by it, and shall then grant the application by that party and refuse the other application or applications.").
	Page 16, line 28, at end insert--
	("(5) In this Part "the register" means--
	(a) in relation to a party registered in the Great Britain register, the Great Britain register, and
	(b) in relation to a party registered in the Northern Ireland register, the Northern Ireland register.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Emblems]:
	[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 85A:
	Page 16, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert--
	("(a) would either--
	(i) be the same as a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in the register in which that party is applying to be registered, or
	(ii) be likely to be confused by voters with a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom,").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am slightly puzzled by the need for both the sub-paragraphs in this amendment. I should have thought that the Government need only the words,
	"would ... be likely to be confused by voters with a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom".
	I do not understand why we require the first sub-paragraph, which refers to,
	"the same as a registered emblem".
	Surely if it is the same as the registered emblem, it could certainly be confused by the voter. Therefore, I do not believe that both are required. I believe that the second sub-paragraph subsumes the first. Perhaps this is what I might call a "Simon of Glaisdale question", in that I am trying to reduce the size of the Bill. I wonder whether the Government can explain why they need both parts; I believe that only the second is required.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord may well be right. I shall find out and contact him shortly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 85B:
	Page 16, line 41, at end insert--
	("(2A) In subsection (2)(a) "already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom" has the meaning given by section 25(2A).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Changes to the register]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 87A:
	Page 17, line 1, at end insert--
	("( ) (if registered in the Great Britain register) changing the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered,").
	Page 17, leave out line 2.
	Page 17, line 5, leave out ("the party applied for registration") and insert--
	("(i) the time when the party applied for registration, or
	(ii) if a notification has been previously given under section 28 in relation to the party, the time when the last such notification was given").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 88 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 88A:
	Page 17, line 10, at end insert--
	("( ) The Commission shall refuse an application to change the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which a party is registered if, in their opinion, the change would be likely to result in--
	(a) such confusion in relation to the party's registered name as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 25(2), or
	(b) such confusion in relation to a registered emblem of the party as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 26(2).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 89A:
	Page 17, line 17, at end insert--
	("( ) For the purposes of subsection (3), (4) or (5)--
	(a) section 25(2)(a) and section 25(2A), or
	(b) section 26(2)(a) and section 25(2A) (as it applies by virtue of section 26(2A)),
	as the case may be, shall each have effect as if the words "applying to be" were omitted.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 90:
	After Clause 27, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES IN PARTY'S OFFICERS ETC
	(".--(1) If at any time any particulars in a party's entry in the register which relate to any relevant matter cease to be accurate, the person registered as treasurer of the party must give the Commission a notification under this section.
	(2) For the purposes of this section "relevant matter" means any of the following--
	(a) the name of any registered officer of the party;
	(b) the home address of any such officer;
	(c) the address of the party's headquarters (or, if it has no headquarters, the address to which communications to the party may be sent);
	(d) the name of the treasurer of any accounting unit of the party;
	(e) the name of any accounting unit of the party;
	(f) the address of the headquarters of any accounting unit of the party (or, if it has no headquarters, the address to which communications to the accounting unit may be sent).
	(3) A notification under this section must specify the relevant matter in respect of which the registered particulars have ceased to be accurate, and--
	(a) if that matter is specified in subsection (2)(a) or (d), include an application for the registration of a person as a replacement for the person currently registered as holder of the office in question; and
	(b) otherwise, specify accurate particulars in respect of that matter.
	(4) A notification under this section must be given to the Commission--
	(a) where subsection (1) applies by reason of the death or the termination for any other reason of the appointment of any registered officer of the party, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of his death or the termination of his appointment;
	(b) where that subsection applies by reason of any other change in circumstances, within the period of 28 days beginning with the date when the change occurs.
	(5) Where the Commission receive a notification under this section, they shall cause any change required as a consequence of the notification to be made in the party's entry in the register as soon as is reasonably practicable.
	(6) In the case of a party with accounting units any reference to the party in subsection (2)(c) shall be read as a reference to the central organisation.
	(7) For the purposes of this section any particulars held by the Commission in respect of the home address of any registered officer of the party shall be taken to be particulars contained in the party's entry in the register.
	(8) Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies to applications under subsection (3)(a).").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 90A to 90C, as amendments to Amendment No. 90, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Confirmation of registered particulars etc]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:
	Page 17, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert--
	("(b) so far as necessary to secure that such particulars will both be accurate and include any information so prescribed, contain one or more of the following, namely--
	(i) an application under section 27,
	(ii) a notification under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.), or
	(iii) any information so prescribed.").
	Page 17, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) For the purposes of this section any particulars held by the Commission in respect of the home address of any registered officer of the party shall be taken to be particulars contained in the party's entry in the register.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Party ceasing to be registered]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 92A:
	Page 18, line 11, leave out ("and IV") and insert ("to V").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 93:
	After Clause 29, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:REGISTRATION OF MINOR PARTIES
	(".--(1) This section applies to any party registered in the Great Britain register in pursuance of a declaration falling within section 25(1A)(d) (referred to in this Act as a "minor party").
	(2) The following provisions do not apply to a minor party--
	(a) any provisions of this Part so far as relating to the registration of a treasurer for a registered party or otherwise referring to a registered treasurer;
	(b) sections 23 and 24; and
	(c) sections 31 and 32;
	but this is subject to subsection (8)(a).
	(3) The registered leader of a minor party must, in the case of each anniversary of the party's inclusion in the register, give a notification under this subsection to the Commission within the period beginning one month before the anniversary and ending three months after it.
	(4) A notification under subsection (3) must--
	(a) state that the particulars in the party's entry in the register remain accurate and include any information prescribed under paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 since the relevant time, or
	(b) so far as necessary to secure that such particulars will both be accurate and include any information so prescribed, contain one or more of the following, namely--
	(i) an application under section 27,
	(ii) a notification under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.), or
	(iii) any information so prescribed.
	(5) In subsection (4) "the relevant time" means--
	(a) the time when the party applied for registration, or
	(b) if a notification has previously been given under subsection (3) in relation to the party, the time when the last such notification was given;
	and for the purposes of subsection (4) any particulars held by the Commission in respect of the home address of any registered officer of the party shall be taken to be particulars contained in the party's entry in the register.
	(6) A notification under subsection (3) must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.
	(7) In addition to being able to make an application under section 27, a minor party may apply to the Commission to have--
	(a) the declaration mentioned in subsection (1) above cancelled, and
	(b) the party's existing entry in the Great Britain register replaced by such entry or entries (in that or the Northern Ireland register) as accord with a fresh declaration sent by the party to the Commission and falling within section 25(1A)(a), (b) or (c).
	(8) Where a minor party makes an application under subsection (7)--
	(a) the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b) shall apply to the party;
	(b) the party must provide the Commission with such information as--
	(i) would, by virtue of Schedule 3, be required to be provided in connection with an application by the party under section 25 to be registered in accordance with the fresh declaration mentioned in subsection (7)(b), and
	(ii) has not already been provided in connection with its existing registration as a minor party; and
	(c) the following provisions, namely--
	(i) sections 25(2) to (4) and 26, and
	(ii) paragraphs 1(2) and 7 of Schedule 3,
	shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the party's application as if it were such an application under section 25 as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 93A:
	Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule--
	:TITLE3:("SCHEDULE
	:TITLE3:TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS
	:TITLE3:PART I
	:TITLE3:AMENDMENTS OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES ACT 1986
	:TITLE3:Preliminary
	1. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
	:TITLE3:Duty to keep under review, and report on, parliamentary representation
	2.--(1) Section 3 (reports of the Commissions) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "Each Boundary Commission" to "the whole of that part" there shall be substituted "The Electoral Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and shall, in accordance with subsection (2) below, submit to the Secretary of State separate reports with respect to the whole of each of those parts".
	(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted--
	"(2) Reports under subsection (1) with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom shall be submitted by the Electoral Commission not less than eight nor more than twelve years from the date of the last report under that subsection with respect to that part of the United Kingdom."
	(4) In subsection (2A), for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission".
	(5) In subsection (3)--
	(a) for "Any Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "The Electoral Commission"; and
	(b) for "the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned" there shall be substituted "any part of the United Kingdom".
	(6) In subsection (4), for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission".
	(7) In subsection (5)--
	(a) for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission"; and
	(b) for "the Commission are" there shall be substituted "the report is".
	(8) In subsection (7)--
	(a) for "a Boundary Commission under subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission under subsection (1) above with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom";
	(b) for "of the Commission under subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted "under subsection (1) above with respect to that part of the United Kingdom"; and
	(c) for "a Boundary Commission publishing" there shall be substituted "a Boundary Committee publishing under section 5 below".
	(9) For the sidenote for section 3 there shall be substituted "Reports of the Electoral Commission."
	(10) In section 3(2) and (7), as amended by this paragraph, any reference to a previous report under section 3(1) with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom includes a reference to such a report which, at any time before the coming into force of this paragraph in relation to that part, was made with respect to that part by one of the Boundary Commissions constituted under the Act.
	:TITLE3:Functions of Boundary Committees
	3. After section 3 there shall be inserted--
	"Reviews and proposed recommendations by Boundary Committees.
	3A.--(1) Where the Electoral Commission intend to consider making a report under this Act ("the section 3 report") with respect to--
	(a) a particular part of the United Kingdom, or
	(b) any area comprised in a particular part of the United Kingdom,
	the Boundary Committee for that part of the United Kingdom shall (subject to subsection (4) below) carry out a review in accordance with this Act for the purpose of enabling them to submit to the Electoral Commission proposals as to the recommendations to be included in the section 3 report.
	(2) Once the Boundary Committee have carried out a review under subsection (1) above, they shall accordingly submit to the Electoral Commission a report containing the recommendations which the Committee propose should be included in the section 3 report in the light of the review.
	(3) Where the Electoral Commission have received a report of a Boundary Committee under subsection (2) above, the Commission may--
	(a) accept in full the proposed recommendations contained in that report and include them in the section 3 report;
	(b) accept those proposed recommendations subject to modifications agreed with the Committee and include them, as so modified, in the section 3 report;
	(c) reject those proposed recommendations and either--
	(i) require the Committee to reconsider their proposed recommendations with a view to deciding whether to submit a further report under subsection (2) above containing different proposed recommendations,
	(ii) require the Committee to carry out a fresh review under subsection (1) above with respect to the whole, or any specified part, of the area which was the subject of the original review, or
	(iii) (in the case only of a review carried out for the purposes of a report under section 3(3) above) take no further action.
	(4) A Boundary Committee shall, in or in connection with the exercise or performance of their powers or duties under this Act, comply with any directions given to them by the Commission (so far as consistent with the rules set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act (read with paragraph 7)).
	(5) In this Act--
	(a) "Boundary Committee" means a Boundary Committee established by the Electoral Commission under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and
	(b) "recommendations" includes (unless the context otherwise requires) a recommendation that no alteration is required."
	:TITLE3:Implementation of Commission's reports
	4. In section 4(1) (Orders in Council), for "the report of a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "a report of the Electoral Commission under this Act".
	:TITLE3:Notices relating to proposed reports or recommendations
	5. For section 5 there shall be substituted--
	"Notices relating to proposed reports or recommendations.
	5.--(1) Where the Electoral Commission intend to consider making a report under this Act, they shall inform the Secretary of State accordingly by notice in writing; and a copy of the notice shall be published--
	(a) in the London Gazette, if the report would be with respect to England or Wales (or an area comprised therein);
	(b) in the Edinburgh Gazette, if the report would be with respect to Scotland (or an area comprised therein); and
	(c) in the Belfast Gazette, if the report would be with respect to Northern Ireland (or an area comprised therein).
	(2) Where a Boundary Committee have provisionally determined proposed recommendations affecting any constituency which they are minded to include in a report under section 3A(2) above, they shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the constituency a notice stating--
	(a) the effect of the proposed recommendations and (except where their effect is that no alteration should be made in respect of the constituency) that a copy of the recommendations is open to inspection at a specified place in the constituency; and
	(b) that representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Boundary Committee within one month after publication of the notice;
	and the Boundary Committee shall take into consideration any representations duly made in accordance with any such notice.
	(3) Where a Boundary Committee revise any proposed recommendations after publishing a notice of them under subsection (2) above, the Committee shall comply again with that subsection in relation to the revised recommendations, as if no earlier notice had been published.
	(4) Where the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to a Boundary Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) above, they shall have regard to--
	(a) any representations duly made with respect to the recommendations in accordance with a notice published under subsection (2) above; or
	(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the area subject to the Committee's review) any representations so made with respect to the recommendations so far as relating to that part of that area.
	(5) Where a Boundary Committee's proposed recommendations affecting any constituency have been modified by the Electoral Commission under section 3A(3)(b) above, the Boundary Committee shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the constituency a notice stating the effect of those recommendations as so modified."
	:TITLE3:Local inquiries
	6.--(1) Section 6 (local inquiries) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for "A Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "In connection with carrying out any review under section 3A(1) above a Boundary Committee".
	(3) In subsection (2)--
	(a) for "recommendation of a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "proposed recommendation of a Boundary Committee";
	(b) for "the Commission", in both places, there shall be substituted "the Committee"; and
	(c) for "make the recommendation" there shall be substituted "proceed with the proposed recommendation".
	(4) In subsection (3), for "Commission" there shall be substituted "Committee".
	(5) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted--
	"(4A) Where a Boundary Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this Act, the Committee shall take into consideration the findings of the inquiry.
	(4B) Where a Boundary Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this Act and the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) above, the Electoral Commission shall have regard to--
	(a) the findings of the inquiry; or
	(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the area which was the subject of the Committee's review) the findings of the inquiry so far as relating to that part of that area."
	(6) In subsections (5) to (7), for "Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "Committee".
	:TITLE3:Rules for redistribution of seats
	7.--(1) Schedule 2 (rules for redistribution of seats) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(4), for "the Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) the Boundary Committee".
	(3) In paragraph 5, for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) a Boundary Committee".
	(4) In paragraph 6, for "A Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "The Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) a Boundary Committee".
	(5) In paragraph 7, for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) a Boundary Committee".
	(6) In paragraph 8--
	(a) the words "for which there is a Boundary Commission" shall be omitted; and
	(b) for "report of a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "report of the Electoral Commission (or one made by a Boundary Committee for purposes of it)".
	:TITLE3:PART II
	:TITLE3:AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ACTS
	:TITLE3:Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)
	8. Schedule 1 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (Assembly constituencies and Assembly regions) shall be amended as follows.
	9. For paragraph 4 there shall be substituted--
	"4.--(1) When the Boundary Committee for Wales ("the Committee") provisionally determine (in pursuance of the 1986 Act) proposed recommendations which they are minded to include in a report under section 3A(2) of that Act and which would involve any alterations in any parliamentary constituencies in Wales, the Committee shall consider whether any alteration--
	(a) in the Assembly electoral regions, or
	(b) in the allocation of seats to the Assembly electoral regions,
	would be required in order to give effect to the rules set out in paragraph 8.
	(2) Any such report by the Committee as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall contain, in addition, the recommendations which, in the light of their consideration of the question mentioned in that sub-paragraph, the Committee propose should be included in the Electoral Commission's section 3 report in pursuance of paragraph 7.
	(3) In section 3A of the 1986 Act--
	(a) subsection (3) shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to any such proposed recommendations as they apply in relation to any proposed recommendations of a Boundary Committee under section 3A(2) of that Act; and
	(b) in subsection (4), the first reference to that Act shall include a reference to this Schedule, and the reference to the rules set out as there mentioned shall include a reference to the rules set out in paragraph 8.
	(4) In this paragraph--
	"the Boundary Committee for Wales" means the Committee of that name established by the Electoral Commission under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
	"the Electoral Commission's section 3 report" means the report of the Electoral Commission under section 3 of the 1986 Act for the purposes of which the proposed recommendations mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) would be made."
	10.--(1) Paragraph 5 (notices of proposed recommendations) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for "paragraph 4, the Commission have provisionally determined to make" there shall be substituted "paragraph 4(1), the Committee have provisionally determined to propose (in pursuance of paragraph 4(2))".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2)--
	(a) for "the Commission propose to recommend" there shall be substituted "their effect is"; and
	(b) for "to the Commission" there shall be substituted "to the Committee".
	(4) In sub-paragraphs (3) to (5), for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee".
	(5) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted--
	"(5A) Where the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above) they shall have regard to--
	(a) any representations duly made with respect to the recommendations in accordance with any notice published under sub-paragraph (1); or
	(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the Assembly electoral region) any representations so made with respect to the recommendations so far as relating to that part of the region.
	(5B) Where the Committee's proposed recommendations have been modified by the Electoral Commission under section 3A(3)(b) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above), the Committee shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the Assembly electoral region a notice stating the effect of those recommendations as so modified."
	11.--(1) Paragraph 6 (local inquiries) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for "The Commission" there shall be substituted "For the purposes of this Schedule the Committee".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2)--
	(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee"; and
	(b) for "make the recommendation" there shall be substituted "proceed with the proposed recommendation".
	(4) In sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee".
	(5) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be added--
	"(6) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph, the Committee shall take into consideration the findings of the inquiry.
	(7) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph and the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above), the Electoral Commission shall have regard to--
	(a) the findings of the inquiry; or
	(b) (where, in the case of any Assembly electoral region in respect of which the inquiry was held, they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the region) the findings of the inquiry so far as relating to that part of the region."
	12. In paragraph 7 (reports)--
	(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after "constituencies" there shall be inserted "in Wales"; and
	(c) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), at the end there shall be added "relating to any constituency or constituencies in Wales."
	13. In paragraph 8 (the rules), for "Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) the Committee".
	14. In paragraph 9(1) (Orders in Council), for "the Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission".
	15. In paragraph 10 (interpretation)--
	(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission"; and
	(b) at the end there shall be added--
	"(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) also apply for construing references to the regional electorate for an Assembly electoral region in relation to any report of the Committee made for the purposes of any such report of the Electoral Commission."
	16. In paragraph 11 (definitions)--
	(a) for the definition of "the Commission" there shall be substituted--
	""the Committee" means the Boundary Committee for Wales (as defined by paragraph 4(4));"; and.
	(b) after that definition there shall be added--
	""recommendations" includes (unless the context otherwise requires) a recommendation that no alteration is required."
	:TITLE3:Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46)
	17. Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 (constituencies, regions and regional members) shall be amended as follows.
	18. In paragraph 3 (reports of Boundary Commission for Scotland), for sub-paragraph (1) and the cross-heading preceding it there shall be substituted--
	"Reports of Electoral Commission
	3.--(1) This paragraph applies where the Electoral Commission ("the Commission") submit a report to the Secretary of State under section 3(1) or (3) of the 1986 Act recommending any alteration in any parliamentary constituencies in Scotland."
	19. After paragraph 4 there shall be inserted--
	"Proposed recommendations by Boundary Committee for Scotland
	4A.--(1) When the Boundary Committee for Scotland provisionally determine (in pursuance of the 1986 Act) proposed recommendations which they are minded to include in a report under section 3A(2) of that Act and which would involve any alteration in any parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, the Committee shall consider whether any alteration within paragraph 3(2) would be required to be made in order to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7.
	(2) Any such report by the Committee as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall contain, in addition, the recommendations which the Committee propose should be included in the Electoral Commission's section 3 report in the light of the Committee's consideration of the question mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
	(3) In section 3A of the 1986 Act--
	(a) subsection (3) shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to any such proposed recommendations as they apply in relation to any proposed recommendations of a Boundary Committee under section 3A(2) of that Act; and
	(b) in subsection (4), the first reference to that Act shall include a reference to this Schedule, and the reference to the rules set out as there mentioned shall include a reference to the rules set out in paragraph 7.
	(4) In this paragraph--
	"the Boundary Committee for Scotland" means the Committee of that name established by the Electoral Commission under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
	"the Electoral Commission's section 3 report" means the report of the Electoral Commission under section 3 of the 1986 Act for the purposes of which the proposed recommendations mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) would be made."
	20.--(1) Paragraph 5 (notices of proposed recommendations) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)--
	(a) for "the Commission have provisionally determined to make" there shall be substituted "the Committee have provisionally determined to propose (in pursuance of paragraph 4A(2))";
	(b) for "they propose to recommend" there shall be substituted "their effect is"; and
	(c) for "to the Commission" and "the Commission shall" there shall be substituted "to the Committee" and "the Committee shall" respectively.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2), for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee".
	(4) After sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted--
	"(3) Where the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4A(3) above) they shall have regard to--
	(a) any representations duly made with respect to the recommendations in accordance with any notice published under sub-paragraph (1); or
	(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the region) any representations so made with respect to the recommendations so far as relating to that part of the region.
	(4) Where the Committee's proposed recommendations have been modified by the Electoral Commission under section 3A(3)(b) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4A(3) above), the Committee shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the region a notice stating the effect of those recommendations as so modified."
	21.--(1) Paragraph 6 (local inquiries) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for "The Commission" there shall be substituted "For the purposes of this Schedule the Committee".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2)--
	(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee"; and
	(b) for "make the recommendation" there shall be substituted "proceed with the proposed recommendation".
	(4) In sub-paragraph (3), for "the Commission" there shall be substituted "the Committee".
	(5) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be added--
	"(6) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph, the Committee shall take into consideration the findings of the inquiry.
	(7) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph and the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above), the Electoral Commission shall have regard to--
	(a) the findings of the inquiry; or
	(b) (where, in the case of any region in respect of which the inquiry was held, they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the region) the findings of the inquiry so far as relating to that part of the region."
	22. In paragraph 7 (the rules), for "Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) the Committee".
	23. In paragraph 8 (meaning of regional electorate)--
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "the Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission"; and
	(b) at the end there shall be added--
	"(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) also apply for construing references to the regional electorate in relation to any report of the Committee made for the purposes of any such report of the Electoral Commission."
	24. After paragraph 8 there shall be added--
	"Interpretation
	9. In this Schedule--
	"the 1986 Act" means the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986;
	"the Committee" means the Boundary Committee for Scotland (as defined by paragraph 4A(4));
	"recommendations" includes (unless the context otherwise requires) a recommendation that no alteration is required." ").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Applications under Part II]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 96:
	Page 107, line 28, after ("application") insert ("for registration in the Great Britain register").
	Page 107, line 31, after ("registered") insert ("in that register").
	Page 107, line 32, at end insert--
	("( ) An application for registration in the Northern Ireland register must specify either--
	(a) a name to be the party's registered name, or
	(b) a name in Irish and a name in English to be the party's registered names.
	( ) If a name to be registered in that register is in a language other than English or Irish, the application must include an English translation.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 108, line 19, after ("name") insert ("of the accounting unit and").

Lord Bach: This short amendment plugs a gap in the information to be included against a party's entry in the register of political parties. Where a party is a party with accounting units, the Bill already requires the party to provide the electoral commission with the name of the treasurer of each accounting unit together with the address of the unit's headquarters or, alternatively, an address to which communications may be sent. There is no requirement to give the name of each accounting unit.
	Without that information a party's entry in the register of political parties will be difficult to follow, not least for the electoral commission which will have to manage the register. The amendment will ensure that sufficient particulars of a party's accounting units are properly recorded in the register so that each one can be readily identified by name. It is this Chamber performing its revising duty. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot resist the temptation to say that I find it remarkable that all this time into the Bill the one thing the Government and the draftsmen have missed out is the name of the accounting unit. The poor old electoral commission would have many treasurers' names and addresses but no indication of the accounting unit responsible. If the Government can make an oversight such as that, is it not possible that they have made an oversight about the need to have another party official involved when the treasurer dies or resigns?

Lord Bach: That is possible but not likely.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 98 to 101:
	Page 108, line 38, leave out ("Paragraphs 9 and") and insert ("Paragraph").
	Page 108, line 42, leave out ("the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule") and insert ("paragraph 10").
	Page 109, leave out lines 1 to 10.
	Page 109, line 24, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("PART IIA
	:TITLE3:APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF REPLACEMENT OFFICER
	:TITLE3:Introductory
	10A.--(1) Paragraphs 10B and 10C must be complied with in relation to an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a).
	(2) In paragraphs 10B and 10C "an application" means an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a).
	Details of replacement etc. officers
	10B.--(1) If as a result of an application one person will be registered as leader, nominating officer and treasurer, the application must request the addition of the name of the holder of some other specified office in the party.
	(2) If an application requests--
	(a) the substitution of the name of a leader, nominating officer, treasurer or other officer, or
	(b) an addition in accordance with sub-paragraph (1),
	the application must give the home address of the person whose name is to be substituted or added.
	:TITLE3:Signature
	10C.--(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), an application must be signed by--
	(a) each person (other then the person to be registered in pursuance of the application) who is one of the responsible officers of the party; and
	(b) the person who is to be so registered.
	(2) For the purposes of this paragraph "the responsible officers" has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.
	(3) If any such person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) is unable to sign an application--
	(a) the holder of some other office in the party may sign in his place, and
	(b) the application must include a statement of the reason why the person in question is unable to sign and a declaration that the holder of the other office is authorised to sign in his place.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Request by Secretary of State]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 18, line 15, after ("the") insert ("Great Britain or Northern Ireland").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 103 to 107 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is part of a group of amendments which contains Amendments Nos. 110 and 110A, which are government amendments. I know that it is late at night and this is complex. However, that is not my fault. Perhaps the Government might like to say a few words before I ask them a difficult question, or perhaps I shall ask the difficult question first.

Lord Bach: An arrangement has been reached, which I hope is satisfactory to all noble Lords, that before the Question regarding Clause 31 is put, we should consider ending proceedings for the day.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to ask his question.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is the first time that the Government have asked me to ask one of my questions. I was so amused that I lost my point.
	I am puzzled by Amendment No. 110, which refers to:
	"Transfer of registration of existing registered party".
	I cannot find that in the Bill or in any of the amendments. I am totally and absolutely puzzled as to where we are being directed. The amendment refers us to a section or clause which, as far as I can see, does not appear in the Bill or in the amendments, nor does it appear afterwards. Perhaps I have missed something.
	To be helpful to the Government, the other amendments in this group are drafting amendments. Deleting Clause 31 takes out the transitional arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that that means that all the political parties, including those already registered, will have to start again at the beginning as if they had never been registered? The transitional arrangements would have allowed a fairly seamless flow from one to the other. I may be wrong in that. I wondered whether that was the outcome of the deletion of the transitional arrangements and whether the reason for that is because we have introduced a second register in the Northern Ireland register. My main point, to which I hope the Minister has now managed to obtain some answers, concerns Amendment No. 110 and the words in italics.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 110 will not be moved. It should have been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. But the bad news is that a whole group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 110A--at least one amendment in that grouping is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish--are part of the transitional arrangements. I understood that we were not going to debate those amendments this evening. I am happy simply to push them through and I hope the noble Lord is less puzzled now than he was.

Clause 31 negatived.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at six minutes past midnight.